d. Admissions and Confessions

JUDGEMENT BY CONFESSION

Rendered by the court after a party expressly agrees to the other party’s claim or acknowledges the validity of the claim against him.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

The party who fails to request for admission of material and relevant facts which are or ought to be within the personal knowledge of such party shall NOT be permitted to present evidence on such facts UNLESS allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice. (Riano, p. 522, 2014)

Elements<br>

• A minister or priest or person reasonably believed to be so
• Without the consent of the affected person
• Cannot be examined as to any
• communication; or
• confession made to; or
• advice given by him/her
• in his/her professional character
• in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs [Sec. 24(d), Rule 130]

Admissions in the Pre-Trial of Criminal Cases

An admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal case is not yet admissible against him. To be admissible, it must be reduced to writing and signed by both the accused and his or her counsel.

Reason:

To compel a minister or priest to testify to a confession made to him is equivalent to an annulment of the confession institution.

Requisites:

• The confession must be made to the minister or priest in his professional character, and in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of the denomination to which the priest or minister belongs; and
• The confession must be of a penitential character.

Rule on Admissions by a party

The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. (Rule 130, Sec. 27)

Example: After a murder, accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Nakapatay ako”. His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against the accused. The admission may be given in evidence against the accused.

The admissions of the president of a company as to its indebtedness are binding on the company under the rule that admissions of liability by a party may be given against it. (Keller & Co. v. COB, G.R. No. L68097, 1986)

Reason:

Based on presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declarations were true.

ADMISSION: refers to 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. In other words, it is an acknowledgement of fact/s opposite to the fact/s raised or positions taken in court.

When is an admission admissible? It must:

• Involve matters of fact, and not of law;
• Be categorical and definite;
• Be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
• Be adverse to the admitter’s interests

Otherwise: it would be self-serving and inadmissible

Two (2) Ways to Introduce an Admission as Evidence:

• As INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE
• As IMPEACHING EVIDENCE

Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (1st Branch):

• Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
• Admission by a Co-Conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 31);
• Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 32);
• Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec. 33; see Tan Siok Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No. 175085, 2016, J. Perez); and
• Interlocking Confessions (People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, 2008)

In a case, petitioners failed to establish that the defendants’ alleged implied admission of a lessorlessee relationship falls under the exceptions to the principle of res inter alios acta as to make such admission binding upon respondents. Although defendants and respondents were all defendants in the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners, it is very clear that defendants and respondents espoused different defenses.

Contrary to defendants’ position, respondents, as early as the filing of their response to petitioners' demand letter, firmly and consistently denied the existence of any lease contract between them and petitioners over the subject land. (Tan Siok Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No. 175085, 2016)

Admission by a third party

Rule on Admissions by a third party (Res Inter Alios Acta)

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (Rule 130, Sec. 29)

Example: After a murder, Accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Napatay namin ni Jose si Juan”. His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against Accused; the declaration may be given in evidence as an admission only against Accused. It is not admissible against Jose.

HOWEVER: If the Accused testifies and explains the participation of Jose, then that testimony is admissible against Jose.

NOTE: Sec. 28 [now Sec. 29], Rule 130 refers to the first branch of the res inter alios acta rule. The second branch can be found in Sec. 35, Rule 130— similar acts as evidence. (Regalado 2008 ed., 758)

Proving the Partnership, Agency, or Joint Ownership

• Entries in the partnership books made by one partner during the continuance of the partnership;
• By the separate admissions of all who are sued;
• By the acts, declarations, or conduct of the parties; or
• The act of one and the declarations or conduct of the others

Admission by a conspirator

The act or declaration of a conspirator may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided the following requisites are present:

• That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the act or declaration itself.
• That the act or declaration was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• That the act or declaration was made during the existence of the conspiracy. (Rule 130, Sec. 31)

In the example above, the utterance of the Accused that “Napatay namin ni Jose si Juan” was made after the conspiracy. Hence, the out of court statement to the neighbor is not binding on Jose.

Reason: Identity of interests for the commission of a crime.

Scope: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or declaration but NOT to testimony at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. (People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, 2011)

If the declaration is made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the object of the conspiracy has been either attained or finally defeated, the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it. (People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, 1955)

In the absence of any other evidence to prove the existence of an alleged conspiracy, extra-judicial statements and admissions of an individual cannot be taken as evidence against an alleged coconspirator. An extrajudicial statement made by a co-accused is, by itself, insufficient to convict an accused of a crime charged because said statement is inadmissible since they were made not during the existence of the conspiracy but after the said conspiracy had already ceased and when the coaccused was already in the custody of the police. (People vs. Cabrera, G.R. No. L-37398, 1974)

The admissibility of a confession by one accused against the other in the same case, must relate to statements made by one conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise (or during its existence) and in furtherance of its objects, and not to a confession made, as in this case, long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. (People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, 1968)

The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts, as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. (People v. Bulan, G.R. No. 143404, 2005)

Silence of an Accused Under Custodial Investigation

The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is not asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. (People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)

Confessions

CONFESSION – a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation. (Regalado 2008 ed.)

A confession is an acknowledgement in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. On the other hand, the term admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense charged. The rights of an accused are not confined to the period prior to the filing of an information but are available at that stage when a person is under investigation for the commission of an offense.

These rights are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an offense. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)

A Confession May be

• JUDICIAL CONFESSION: One made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain a conviction in capital offenses.

This is admissible against the declarant’s coaccused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to cross-examine.

• EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION: One made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti.

May be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to crossexamine him. (Riano 2016 ed.)

Note: The important thing is the affected party (i.e., co-accused) was given the opportunity to crossexamine. It is irrelevant whether such party actually cross-examined the confessant.

Where an extrajudicial admission or confession is repeated during trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such admission or confession is transposed into a judicial admission or confession. (People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 2004)

Admissibility of Extra-judicial Confessions

To be admissible, it is necessary that:

• The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt.
• The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense.
• The confession must have been given voluntarily.
• The confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of his act.
• There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.

Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall be in writing, and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priests or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (Bar 2006; 2008)

A confession made before the confessant is placed under custodial investigation need not comply with the above. (Riano, 2016 ed.)

The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment nor reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against self-incrimination. xxx While an accused is in custody, his silence may not be taken in evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent. His silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory. (People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)

Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are flawed under the Constitution and as such cannot be admitted in Court. (People v. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, 1995)

Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 1996)

General Rule – The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused.

Exceptions: The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such exception worth noting is the rule that where several extrajudicial statements had been (i) made by several persons charged with an offense and (ii) there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, (iii) the facts that the statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein.

They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as “interlocking confessions”. (People v. Lising, G.R. Nos. 106210- 11, 1998).

After accused-appellant was arrested, he stated that five police officers at the police station beat him up. They asked him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, sat on his stomach, placed a handkerchief over his face, and poured water and beer over his face. When he could no longer bear the pain, he admitted the crime charged, participated in a re-enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement. He was not informed of his right to remain silent nor did he have counsel of his choice to assist him in confessing the crime. This was contrary to the constitution (People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 1996).

The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the “exclusionary rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The accused cannot be made to affix their signatures on evidence without complying with the Bill of Rights. By affixing their signatures on the evidence, the accused are in effect made to tacitly admit the crime charged for, in this case, mere possession of prohibited drugs is a crime. These signatures amount to uncounseled extra-judicial confession prohibited by the Bill of Rights and are therefore inadmissible as evidence. (People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801- 11, 1996)

Confrontation Clause and Confessions

The Confrontation Clause does not bar admission into evidence of every relevant extrajudicial statement by a non-testifying declarant simply because it in some way incriminates the defendant. And an instruction directing the jury to consider a codefendant's extrajudicial statement only against its source is generally sufficient to avoid offending the implicated defendant's confrontation right. The court may admit into evidence interlocking confessions of co-defendants/accused even without giving the accused an opportunity to cross-examine his codefendant. The rule however is different when a codefendant does not confess. In such cases, the codefendant must be given an opportunity to crossexamine the confessant if and when such person takes the witness stand. (Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 1979)

Admissions made before the Mayor & Station Commander during a conference that defendants were responsible for killing the victims is an admission. Also a judicial admission by one accused is admissible against his co-accused, unlike in an extrajudicial confession, where it is admissible only against the one making it. (People v. Encipido, G.R. No. 70091, 1986)

A videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening his guilt, willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen does not form part of custodial investigation if it was not given to police officers but media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. However, it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting confessions of such nature. (People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, 2001)

A confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was not shown that said reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear. (People v. Coyos, G.R. No. 138403, 2001)

An uncounseled confession or admission given by the accused to a private individual is not covered by Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution where there is no showing that said private individual was acting under police authority. (People v. Mayo, G.R. No. 170470, 2006)

An uncounseled extrajudicial confession taken by a “bantay bayan,” who is charged with the state related function of peace-keeping, is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 2010)

Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused, is inadmissible. (People v. Duero, G.R. No. L-52016, 1981)

Declarations Against Interest and Admissions Distinguished