Confession

Sec. 33. Confession. – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

What is confession?

An acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the offense charged, or of some essential parts thereof. (Wigmore).

It is a categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation. If there is an allegation of a justification for the act, it is merely an admission.

How confession may be made?

Confession can be made orally or in writing. If it is in writing, it is NOT required to be under oath.  

When is the rule applicable?

This rule is applicable only in criminal cases.

Confession of judgment – made in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability

Judicial confession vs. Extrajudicial confession

Judicial confession – one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein. By itself, can sustain a conviction

Extrajudicial confession – one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. 

Exceptions to the rule that confessions of an accused may be given in evidence against him and incompetent against his co-accused:

a) When several accused are tried together, confession made by one of them during the trial implicating the others is evidence against the latter (People vs. Impit Gumaling, 61 Phil. 165);

b) When one of the defendants is discharged from the information and testifies as a witness for the prosecution, the confession made in the course of his testimony is admissible against his co-defendants, if corroborated by indisputable proof (People vs. Bautista,40 Phil. 389);

c) If a defendant after having been apprised of the confession of his co-defendant ratifies or confirms said confession, the same is admissible against him (People vs. Orenciada and Cenita,47 Phil. 970);

d) Interlocking confessions – Where several extra-judicial confession had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the fact that the statements therein are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendant, and is admissible against his other co-defendants (People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718);

e) A statement made by one defendant after his arrest, in the presence of his co-defendant, confessing his guilt and implicating his co-defendant who failed to contradict or deny it, is admissible against his codefendant (22 CJS 1441);

f) When the confession is of a conspirator and made after conspiracy in furtherance of its object, the same is admissible against his co-conspirator; and

g) The confession of one conspirator made after the termination of a conspiracy is admissible against his co-conspirator if made in his presence and assented to by him, or admitted its truth or failed to contradict or deny it (Wharton on Evidence).

Cross-references:

Art. 3, Sec. 12 and 17, 1987 Constitution

Rule 115 (e) Rules of Court

Cases

People v. Sarmiento, 147 SCRA 252 (1987) A confession, to be admissible, must have been executed in the presence of counsel. Waiver of right to counsel must be with the assistance of counsel. 

People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994) Where the confession was made even before the accused was under custodial investigation, it is admissible even if he was not assisted by counsel. Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the accused is said to be under custodial investigation.

People v. Sumayo, 70 SCRA 488 (1976) Where the extra-judicial confessions of the accused are consistent in many material details and manifest amazing consistency and accuracy in the narration of events and of facts which could not have been known to the police investigators if the same were not voluntarily given by the accused, such statements are admissible against the accused on the doctrine of interlocking confessions.

de Leon: The value of the doctrine of interlocking confessions is when a confession is inadmissible against one accused (e.g. obtained without counsel), but it is nevertheless admissible against the other co-accused. The confession of one may be used against another to produce evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

People v. Compil, 244 SCRA 135 (1995)

People v. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)

People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979)

People v. Yip Wai Ming, 264 SCRA 224 (1996)

People v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565 (1995)

Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 (1979)

People v. Encipido, G.R. No. 7009l, Dec. 29, 1986