CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

INTRODUCTION:

Legally, Confession is a declaration of the accused that he has committed or

participated in the commission of a crime, while Admission is an acknowledgement by a
party as to the existence of a particular fact, made either judicially or extra-judicially
against his interest or his favor. (U.S. versus Razon, 37 Phil. 307).

To the layman, confession and admission are words of similar import but to the
investigator, both have wider legal spectrum of implications and connotation. More so,
with the stringent procedural safeguards as enshrined under the 1987 Constitution.

Thus, there is an empirical need to know the textual interpretation and

jurisprudence of Section 12 (3), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution to guide law enforcers
in the intricate arena of investigation, which provides:

“Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible as evidence against him.” Section 17, Article 3
likewise provides:

“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

While the afore-quoted proviso evokes myriad of questions and quizzical eyebrows
among law enforcers, however, it would be a wrong notion to conclude that the law
“puts a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves
violation the law.” 5 Corpus Juris, PP. 399, 416.

This brings to focus that the legal requirements now are more stringent and
precise than the celebrated Miranda Doctrine. (Miranda versus Arizona, 384 vs 436, 16
L. Ed. 2nd 694).

It should be noted that the purpose is not to coddle wrong-doers or to protect the
guilty, but the Constitution seeks to redress the unequal contest between an individual
and the enormous power of the government in search for truth and justice which is the
bedrock of civilized society.

At this juncture, it is of an essence to quote the leading jurisprudence behind the

rationale of the provision. In the case of People vs Vargas, the court ruled, “The
imposition in the New Constitution of an additional safeguard against extraction of
confession is a recognition of an already prevalent practice in custodial interrogation that
has tarnished the image of the police investigator and which is sought to be erased by the
aforesaid constitutional safeguard.”

In the latest ruling of the tribunal under GR 69210 dated July 5, 1989, the
Supreme Court ruled that lawyers should never prevent a person from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth.

“The court denounces in the strongest terms possible the widespread misconception
that the presence of a lawyer under the right to counsel provision of the Constitution is
intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him,” the
Supreme Court declared.
 In the word of Justice Hugo Gutierrez, the right of the accused to have a lawyer is
designed to preclude the “slightest coercion that would lead the accused to admit
something false.”

“Whether it is an extra-judicial statement or testimony in an open court, the

purpose is always the ascertainment of the truth,” the Court continued.

TYPES OF CONFESSION:

1) Judicial Confession or confession done in open court. The plea of guilt may be
during arraignment or at any stage of the proceedings where the accused changes
his plea of not guilty to guilty; and

2) Non-Judicial Confession which is so called also “Out of Court” or “Extra Judicial

Confession”. This type of confession is inadmissible unless corroborated by proof
of corpus delicti. The confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary, in writing
and be made with the assistance of a counsel of his own choice with full
understanding of the consequence of such confession.

Get separate confessions for separate crimes or offenses. This will avoid objection
that the accused is being tried for more than one offense or that the confession for other
crime is outside of the courts jurisdiction.

EFFECTS OF CONFESSION:

1) May be given in evidence against him in the investigation or trial of the offense
with which he is charged; and

2) May be given to prove the guilt of his companions but it will pass a lot of court
argumentation and deliberation.

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 services of the 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.

BASIC PARTS OF THE CONFESSION/SWORN STATEMENT:

The confession/sworn statement of the suspect, witness, complainant/victim and

informant should be in a language understood or used by him and should contain the
following basic parts:

1) The title or identification of the statement containing the name and address of the
affiant, the name of the investigator as well as his rank, the witnesses to the
statement, information as to where and when the statement was taken;

2) The certifications of the investigator and of the assisting counsel that have both
properly informed the affiant about the investigation being conducted to him of
his alleged participation in a certain crime committed;
3) The affiant shall be informed of his constitutional rights;

Such long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our Laws. Instead, there should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation). (Supreme Court Decision in People
versus Galit, L-51770, Mar 20, 1985).

The stereo-typed “advice” appearing in practically all extra-judicial

confessions which are repudiated has assumed the nature of a “legal form” or
model. Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt
“Opo” as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their
handwriting. It is tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not
create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the
accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of
right is missing. (People versus Jara G.R. No. 61356-57, Sep 30, 1986).

When the Constitution requires a person under investigation “to be

informed” of his right to remain silent and to counsel, it must be presumed to
contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. As
a rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to
the person under investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of the
Constitution. He is not only duty bound to tell the person the rights to which
the latter entitled; he must also explain their effects in practical terms, e.g.,
what the person under interrogation may or may not do, and in a language the
subject fairly understands. (People vs Ramos, 122 SCRA 312; People vs Caguioa,
95 SCRA 2)

In other words, the right of a person under interrogation “to be informed”

implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain,
and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding
what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly
be said that the person has been “informed” of his rights. Now since the right “to
be informed” implies comprehension, the degree of explanation required will
necessarily vary, depending upon the education, intelligence and other relevant
personal circumstances of the person under investigation. Suffice it to say that
a simpler and more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered.”
People vs Nicandro, G.R. No. 59378, February 11, 1986; Ppeople vs Duhan, et al.,
G.R. No. 65189, May 28, 1986).

4) The certification of the affiant that he was informed of his Constitutional Rights;

5) The question revealing the personal circumstances of the affiant;

6) The question asking the affiant if he/she knows why he/she is being questioned;

7) The questions proving the individual elements of the suspected violation/crime

(WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHO, WHY and HOW).

8) The affiant’s sworn statement should contain sufficient details as to the

commission of the offense/crime;
9) The affiant shall be informed that the investigator has no more question to
him/her;

10) The sworn statement should contain errors or mistakes in every page
intentionally committed by the investigator. While reading it, the affiant’s
attention should be invited to these errors or mistakes. He/she should make to
correct them in his own handwriting and affix his/her initials thereto. (In many
instances, the affiant upon advise of the counsel would wish to deny the
statement or set up the defense that he/she has signed the statement without
reading it. All personal corrections of the affiant thereof would disprove all the
foregoing denials);

11) The signature of the affiant (if minor – to include the signature of the
parents/guardian).
 At this juncture, it is of an essence to quote the leading jurisprudence behind the
rationale of the provision. In the case of People versus Vargas the court ruled, “The
imposition in the New Constitution of an additional safeguard against extraction of
confession is a recognition of an already prevalent practice in custodial interrogation
that has tarnished the image of police investigators and which is sought to be erased by
the aforesaid constitutional safeguard”.

In the light of this development, will the investigator taken the written confession
of an accused who voluntarily surrenders and admits the killing?

Under the prevailing atmosphere, many investigators are hesitant and adamant
to take the written confession for fear of infringing the Constitutional injunction.

This mediocrity of attitude of investigator as to whether to take or not the written

confession of a surrenderee is untenable. The fact that the accused voluntarily
surrenders is indicative that his right to silence and to counsel is deemed waived and
may not be invoked.

Some of the investigators entertain the notion that for a confession to be

admissible, it must be in writing and under oath. Is this contention tenable? This
erroneous perception is untenable. In one case, the Supreme Court held that confession
need not be in writing. What is necessary is credible evidence that the oral confession
was really made. (People versus Feliciano, 94 SCRA 586).

Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. So, if the investigator refuses to

take the confession of an accused, he may offend the religious faith which the accused
professes, and likewise, deprive the surrenderee of statutory privilege to mitigate his
criminal culpability as a consequence of his surrender. The reason behind this doctrine
is to give premium to a person who runs afoul with the law to surrender, and thus
unburdens the state for his capture.

If however, the confession would be reduced into writing, the investigator should
profound questions on the reasons of his surrender and why he killed the victim and
other details which is relevant to the facts of the case.

If during the trial, the defense counsel objected to the presentation of the written
confession, and the accused, upon the advice of his counsel repudiated his admission,
would his confession be considered a sham?

At the risk of being presumptuous, the better view is to cite authority on the
premise. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General on the aforesaid circumstances;
“If however, he voluntarily admits the killings, the constitutional safeguards to be
informed of his rights to silence and to counsel may not be invoked”.