CONT.

MIDTERM LESSON

A. CONFESSION:

1. Confession Defined. It is the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of

the offense charged. (Statutory Definition.)

Confession is an express acknowledgement by the accused, in a criminal case, of the

truth of his guilt as to the crime charged, or of some essential part thereof. (U.S. Vs.
Tea, 23 Phil. 64)

2 .Effect of Confession. The confession of the accused may be given in evidence against him in
the investigation or trial of the offense with which he is charged.

3. When is a Confession Inadmissible? No person shall be compelled to be a witness against

himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice. If he cannot afford the service of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. No force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.

Any confession obtained in violation of the foregoing shall be inadmissible in evidence

against him. furthermore, the officer who
secures a confession in violation of any of these rights may be held liable for damages
under Article 32 of the Republic Act no. 386.

ARTICLE 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; cd
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

4. Corroborating the Extra-Judicial Confession of an Accused. It must be corroborated by

evidence of corpus delicti to sustain conviction. This requirement does not mean that every
element of the crime must be proven by evidence independent of the confession, but rather,
that there must be some independent evidence to show that a crime was committed.

5. Confession Made by a Defendant Against a Co-Defendant. A Confession made by a

defendant is admissible against himself but not against himself his defendant (based on the
rule on res inter alios acta MEANS 'A thing done between others'), unless the defendant are
being prosecuted for a crime involving conspiracy, the confession of one conspirator may be
admitted in evidence against his co-conspirator.

 This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as
hearsay against them.

6. Best Method of Ratifying a Confession. Confessions made by a suspect before an

investigator should be sworn to preferably before a prosecutor or municipal/city judge.

7. Crime Reenactment. This is accomplished through the use of movie cameras and tape
recorders by qualified technicians. In such reenactment procedure, the written confession is
used as the script and the officer should ensure that the details of the crime as reported by
the accused are followed during the reenactment. This strengthens the prosecutors case
and serves to convince the judge that the accused, whose face appears on the screen, was
not maltreated nor affected by sinister psychological influence. To be admissible evidence,
some person should be able to testify on the authenticity on the recording.

B. ADMISSION:

1. Admission Defined. It is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by implication, by

a party in interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of
the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue.

2. Distinguished From Confession. A Confession is a voluntary statement either oral or

written, made by a person charged with the commission of a crime to another person wherein
the suspect admits participation in, or commission of, the criminal act, while an admission is a
statement by the accused regarding facts pertinent to crime. The latter tends, in connection
with proof of other facts, to prove the suspect’s guilt. To be admitted as evidence, an
admission must relate to relevant and material fact. a confession is only admissible against
the confessor while an admission may be used even against a co- defendant.
 3. Admission of a Party. The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him.

a. Offer of Compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offense (criminal

negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
b. Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn or an Unaccepted Offer of Plea of Guilty to a lesser
offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.

c. Offer to Pay or Payment of Medical, Hospital or other Expenses occasioned by an injury

is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

4. Admission by Third Party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudged by an act, declaration,
or omission of another, except:

a. An admission by a co-partner or an agent.

b. An admission by a co-conspirator, when the conspiracy has been established by evidence.
c. An admission by one who is in privily with the party against whom the admission is sought
to be used.
d. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of party,
who does or says nothing, when the act or declaration naturally calls for action or
comments it not true.
CASE SCENARIO

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 216064. November 07, 2016 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ANTONIO DACANAY Y
TUMALABCAB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO DACANAY y TUMALABCAB G.R. No. 216064,NOV 7, 2016 , CAGUIOA, J. FACTS:

An Information was filed with the RTC, accused-appellant Antonio T. Dacanay (Antonio) was charged with
the crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. That on or about
October 06, 2007, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one NORMA
DACANAY y ERO, his wife, by then and there stabbing her body with an ice pick several times, thereby
inflicting upon her mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.

The RTC gave weight to the extrajudicial confession of Antonio and found him guilty of the crime of Parricide.
The CA affirmed the RTC in to to and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, on the ground that Antonio failed
to overcome the presumption of voluntariness attended by his extrajudicial confession. In his defense, he
averred that the twin defenses of alibi and denial, claiming coercion and intimidation on the part of the police
officers involved in the investigation of the crime. In his Appeal, Antonio insists that his extrajudicial
confession is inadmissible on the ground that it was given under a "coercive physical or psychological
atmosphere". To support his claim, Antonio underscores the fact that he was inside a detention cell with two(2)
or three(3) other detainees when he allegedly confessed to the crime before the media.

Issue:

Whether or not the extrajudicial admission is admissible in evidence

Held:

Yes. At the outset, we note that Antonio had already admitted in his Appellant's Brief that he was not
under custodial investigation at the time he gave his extrajudicial confession. Although he was not under
custodial investigation, note must be taken that Antonio Dacanay was inside a detention cell with two (2) or
three (3) other detainees when he allegedly confessed before the media. Lastly, although confession before the
media does not form part of custodial investigation, Antonio Dacanay should have been informed about the
consequences of his when he decided to confess his alleged guilt. Hence, Antonio's reliance on constitutional
safeguards is misplaced as much as it is unfounded. We need not belabor this point. We rule that appellant's
verbal confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another
individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein
areprimarily addressed to the State and its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist
without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government, rights that
government has the duty to protect.

The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention cell does not by
itself render such confession inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like this Court to believe. In People
v. Domantay, where the accused was also interviewed while inside a jail cell, this Court held that such
circumstance alone does not taint the extrajudicial confession of the accused, especially since the same was
given freely and spontaneously
 FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912. ]

HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

O’Brien & DeWitt for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. OPIUM LAW; CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY. — Where a crime has been committed, the admission of
a party charged with the same, deliberately made, are always admissible, for the purpose of showing the guilt of
such person. A confession may be defined as an acknowledgment, in express words, by the accused in a
criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or of some essential part thereof. Confessions of guilt
should always be scrutinized carefully. The courts should be slow to accept them. They should be weighed with
the greatest care, in relation to all of the facts presented in evidence.

DECISION

JOHNSON, J. :

This defendant was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The complaint alleged: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about May 13, 1911, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Lio Team did,
willfully, illegally and criminally, smoke and take opium into his own body, not for medicinal purposes
not by prescription of a duly licensed practicing physician." cralaw virtua1aw library

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, in his decision, made the
following statement: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Excluding from all consideration in connection with this case, the testimony of Dr. Goff, who
appeared form the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the confession of the accused made to Mr.
Armstrong, of the Internal Revenue Bureau, on the night in question, immediately after the arrest,
taken together with other proofs relative to the character of the house where the arrest took place
and which was raided on the night in question, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime
charged." cralaw virtua1aw library

And upon these facts he sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for a period of four months and to
pay the costs. The lower court ordered that the apparatus seized at the time of the arrest of the
defendant be forfeited.
From that sentence the defendant appealed and made the following assignments of error: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The court erred in holding that the alleged statements made to the internal revenue agent, Mr.
Armstrong, were made as a confession.

"II. The court erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a confession." cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first assignment of error, the question is presented whether or not the
statements made by the defendant to the witness Armstrong, amounted to a confession of guilt of
the crime charged against him. The witness Armstrong testified that he had a conversation with the
defendant at or about the time of the arrest. That conversation was as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I asked him if it was true that he was there smoking opium, and he said it was. i asked him if it was
true that he was smoking opium when I commenced to knock on the door, and he said it was. I
asked him where the opium was and he laughed and said, ’Find it — you will never find it if you look
a week.’ I asked him if he knew where it was hidden , and he said he did not; that the only people
who knew, were the people in charge of the den. I asked him if he did not smoke when I was beating
on the door and he said yes. He said, when we knocked, all the people came downstairs, and the
people in charge of the place hid the opium and the pipes." cralaw virtua1aw library

The witness Armstrong testified that no force whatever was used against the defendant and that no
promises of reward of any character were made to him.

The defendant was charged with the crime of smoking and using opium. The evidence shows that the
place in which the defendant and the others were arrested was a place frequented by Chinamen for
the purpose of smoking opium. In view of the crime charged in the complaint and the statements
made by the defendant to the witness Armstrong, the question is, Did such statements amount to a
confession of the crime charged? A confession may be defined as an acknowledgment in express
words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or of some essential
part thereof. (Wigmore on Evidence, vo. 1, sec. 821.) The complaint charged that the defendant
smoked opium. The statement of the defendant to the witness Armstrong, was that he had been
smoking opium. It would seem, therefore, that the confession or statement made by the defendant
falls clearly within the general definition of what a confession is. The statements made by the
defendant, mounting to a confession, were they sufficient upon which to base a conviction, under the
law? We think they were.

Where a crime has been committed, the admissions of a party charged with the crime, deliberately
made, are always admissible for the purpose of showing the guilt of the accused. (Andrews v. People,
117 Ill., 195; U.S. v. Castillo Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 17 U. S. v. De la Cruz Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 148; U.
S. v. Pascual Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 457.)

It appears that the statements made by the defendant with reference to this smoking opium, had
been made freely and not under the influence of fear or other improper inducements.

The appellant in this court alleges that the statements made by him to the officer Armstrong were
made in jest — that he was joking. The appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf in the
court below. He then denied that he made any statements at all to the officer relating to the fact that
he had been smoking opium. No pretense was made in the lower court that his statements were
made in jest.
In additional to the statements made by the defendant to the officer at the time of the arrest, the
record fairly bristly with indications showing that the defendant and his companions, at the time and
place of the arrest, had been smoking opium. There were twelve or fifteen Chinamen in the house
where the defendant was arrested. The house in which the defendant and his companions were was
thoroughly barricaded. The front door leading to the house was a heavy door, composed of two or
three thicknesses of board, covered inside and out with sheet iron. Through this door there were a
number of peep-holes, the larger ones being covered by a small piece or slide on the inside. The
house was wired with electric bells, so that a person, inside the room barricaded by that heavy door,
might, by push-bottoms, give the alarm to the person about the house. Each of the witnesses
testified, that, when they entered the room, after gaining admission with much difficulty, they found
that the air in the room was laden with a very string smell of opium smoke. A small portion of opium
was found the table. An opium lamp was also found in the room.

Confessions of guilt should always be scrutinized carefully. Courts should slow to accept them. They
should be weighed with the greatest care in relation to all of the facts and circumstances presented in
the evidence. In the present case we have contained in the record, in finding the defendant guilty of
the crime charged, in view of his confession. The sentence of the lower court is, therefore, hereby
affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.