HOW TO CONDUCT

EXTRA JUDICIAL
CONFESSION

Submitted by:

DE GUIA, Patrixia Joy Miclat

2020-0413

In partial fulfillment for the requirements in Legal Counseling and Social

Responsibility

Submitted to:

Atty. Erik Lazo

I. Abstract
Legal Counseling is when a lawyer renders service to a person by
giving advice and helping such person decide on a matter by laying the laws
and the possible consequences of his or her actions. Confession is a
statement of an accused, which may harm him in the process. By way of
confession an accused acknowledges his involvement or guilt over a crime.
Our laws have different ways of extracting the truth—by evidence. There
can be documentary evidence or testimonial evidence. This study aims to
explain the importance of legal counseling in relation to extra judicial
confessions.

II. Discussion
Under the rules of court evidence is the means sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact. Evidence may be documentary or testimonial. Testimonial evidence is
evidence elicited from the mouth of a witnes.Testimonial evidence may
include admissions and confessions. Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court states that:

Section 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or

omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.1

Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the

existence of truth of certain facts, which are inconsistent with his claims in
an action2. Confessions and admissions are classified—express and implied.
An express admission is a positive statement while implied is inferred from
the declarations or actions of a person. However, there is no implied
confession. Confessions are always express where a party positively
acknowledges his guilt and such cannot be inferred.

As generally understood, a confession is an acknowledgement in

express terms by a party in a criminal case of his guilt. Thus defined, a
confession implies an admission of every essential element necessary to
establish the crime with which the defendant is charged. 3 Judicial
confessions may sustain conviction; extra judicial confession is not
sufficient for conviction. Rule 133 Section 3 of the Rules of Court states
that:

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for

conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an

                                                                                                               
1  Rules of Court Rule 130, Section 26.
2  Willard B. Riano, Evidence (Bar Lecture Series), (2019)
3  M.C Slough, Fordham Law Review, Confessions and Admissions, available at
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144222858.pdf  
 accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)4

 
  Corpus Delicti is the “body of the crime”, it is the actual commission
of the crime and the fact that someone is criminally responsible therefore.
Hence, it must still be proven that the person who confessed was not merely
forced to confess the commission of the crime. In the case of People of the
Philippines v Dacanay, G.R No. 216064 the Court said “as a rule, an
extrajudicial confession, where admissible, must be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti in order to sustain a finding of guilt. In this
connection, extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary until the
contrary is proved.”5 In People V Dacanay, Norma Dacanay was found
lifeless in their house after investigation her husband, Antonio Dacanay was
tried for the crime of parricide in RTC which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Antonio elevated the case to the Supreme Court under the pretense
that his extra judicial confession is inadmissible on the ground that it was
given under a "coercive physical or psychological atmosphere". Antonio
argued 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. It must
be noted that in this case Antonio is no longer under custodial investigation
when he confessed of the crime—that he killed his wife over the missing
One Hundred Thousand Pesos. Antonio argues that the policemen coerced
him to admit that he is the one who killed his wife coerced him. The court
ruled that appellant's confessions to the news reporters were given free from
any undue influence from the police authorities. The news reporters acted as
news reporters when they interviewed appellant. They were not acting under
the direction and control of the police. They were there to check appellant's
confession to the mayor. They did not force appellant to grant them an
interview and reenact the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his
permission before interviewing him. They interviewed him on separate days
not once did appellant protest his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly
confessed his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in the
commission of the crime, and consented to its reenactment. His family and
other relatives witnessed all his confessions to the news reporters. There was
no coercive atmosphere in the interview of appellant by the news reporters.
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.6 The argument that the confession is made while he is in his
cell is untenable, it does not render the extra judicial confession inadmissible
even if he argues that the atmosphere therein is tense and intimidating.
While Antonio's testimony is replete with imputations of violence and
coercion, no other evidence was presented to buttress these desperate claims.
Neither was there any indication that Antonio instituted corresponding
                                                                                                               
4  Rules of Court Rule 133, Section 3
5  People of the Philippines v Dacanay, G.R No. 216064  
6  Id  
criminal or administrative actions against the police officers allegedly
responsible. It is well settled that where the accused fails to present evidence
of compulsion; where he did not institute any criminal or administrative
action against his supposed intimidators for maltreatment; and where no
physical evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as
factors indicating voluntariness. A conviction must rest on the strength of
the admissible evidence of the prosecution, not on the weakness or
insufficiency of the defense. Absent any independent evidence of coercion
or violence to corroborate Antonio's bare assertions, no other conclusion can
be drawn other than the fact that his statements were made freely and
spontaneously, unblemished by any coercion or intimidation. As a rule, an
extrajudicial confession, where admissible, must be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti in order to sustain a finding of guilt. In this
connection, extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary until the
contrary is proved. Hence, as extensively discussed above, considering that
Antonio failed to rebut such presumption of voluntariness regarding the
authorship of the crime, coupled with the fact of death of his wife, Norma,
we find Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Parricide.7

The court arrived to a different ruling in the case of People of the

Philippines V Nazario et. al, G.R No. L-470 in this case Nazario et. al was
convicted of the crime of robbery they appealed their case arguing that the
extra judicial confessions were admitted without evidence of corpus delicti.
The Court ruled that there is complete failure of proof, independently of the
alleged confessions, of the crime of robbery having been committed, as
contended for the prosecution. It is obvious that Rebollido had no personal
knowledge of the alleged happening, nor of the alleged loss by Juliet Dilli of
the above enumerated effects. In view of the failure of such independent
evidence, the only source of proof which the prosecution offers for the
conviction of these accused are their alleged extra-judicial confessions. We
need not dwell upon the question of whether said confessions were extracted
through force and intimidation as contended by appellants, in view of the
conclusion we have reached as to their legal insufficiency under the
circumstances of the instant case.

Rule 123, section 96, provides:

SEC. 96. Extra-judicial confession, not sufficient

ground for conviction. — An extra-judicial confession
made by an accused, shall not be a sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti.

It is a rule that it does not require proof of every element of the crime apart
from the confession but merely that there should be some evidence apart
from the confession, tending to show that a crime has been committed: for
example, in case of homicide, there should be some proof of a death, as by
the production of a dead body. But in the instant case, as already mentioned

                                                                                                               
7  Id
above, not a single witness from his own personal knowledge testified at the
trial to prove any of the elements of the crime of robbery. Appellant's guilt
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.8

From the foregoing cases it can be gleaned upon that the court does
not automatically admit extrajudicial confessions for a person would not
normally admit that he committed a crime unless put in a situation where he
is coerced to i.e. when his life is in danger or that of his family or that he is
in an intimidating atmosphere.

An extra-judicial confession extracted in violation of constitutionally

enshrined rights is inadmissible in evidence. During custodial investigation,
suspects have the rights, among others, (1) to remain silent, (2) to have an
independent and competent counsel, (3) to be provided with such counsel, if
unable to secure one, (4) to be assisted by one in case of waiver, which
should be in writing, of the foregoing; and (5) to be informed of all such
rights and of the fact that anything he says can and will be used against him.
Where the remaining pieces of evidence are insufficient to determine guilt
with moral certainty, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. A conviction
must rest on the strength of the admissible evidence of the prosecution, not
on the weakness or insufficiency of the defense.9 A person who confess of a
crime is still protected by our law we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that
there are factors which would affect a person—such as fear for his life or
that of his family like in cases where controversial people are involved and
masses are keen to the outcome of the case hence law enforcers are
pressured to present a result—a suspect. Hence, the court provides
protection to victims who are coerced to admit of a crime that they did not
commit. In conducting an extra judicial confession it must be noted that it
must be free and voluntary, that the accused is free from any fear, restraint,
pressure, or that he is coerced. It must also be noted that an accused after
knowing his rights freely and voluntarily admits the commission of the
crime knowing the full consequence of such confession.

CONCLUSION

To reiterate an extra-judicial confession extracted in violation of

constitutionally enshrined rights is inadmissible in evidence. During
custodial investigation, suspects have the rights, among others, (1) to remain
silent, (2) to have an independent and competent counsel, (3) to be provided
with such counsel, if unable to secure one, (4) to be assisted by one in case
of waiver, which should be in writing, of the foregoing; and (5) to be
informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can and will
be used against him. Where the remaining pieces of evidence are insufficient
to determine guilt with moral certainty, the appellant is entitled to an
acquittal. A conviction must rest on the strength of the admissible evidence
                                                                                                               
8  People of the Philippines V Nazario et. al, G.R No. L-470
9  People of the Philippines V Muleta, G.R No. 130189

 
of the prosecution, not on the weakness or insufficiency of the defense. The
protection of accused even in cases of extrajudicial confessions is still
accorded by the court. First because during custodial investigation a person
taken in custody is already a person of interest hence anything that a person
would say can be used against him. The purpose of Miranda Rights is to
assure that the person knows his rights and he is properly represented by the
counsel of his or her choice.

There are numerous case wherein due to pressure and abuse of power
law enforcers are forced to present a person who allegedly committed the
crime or in some cases frame a person. The purpose of the rule in extra
judicial confession is to protect persons are put in such situation—for them
to keep their freedom.

RECOMMENDATION:

According to Blacks' Law Dictionary, counsel means advice and

assistance given by one person to another in regard to a legal matter,
proposed line of conduct, claim or contention. As a matter of fact lawyers
are also legal counsels. Counselor is an attorney; lawyer; member of the
legal profession who gives legal advice and handles the legal affairs of
client, including if necessary appearing on his or her behalf in civil, criminal
or administrative action and proceedings. Lawyers counsel the client in
deciding how his problem can be sorted out under the laws. Legal
counseling is the process by which a lawyer communicates advice to a
client.10 In relation to extra judicial confessions, being that the importance of
legal counseling is to help a person understand a situation or clear his or her
thoughts before taking an action and to help a person in making a decision,
legal counseling and social legislation must be given a great attention to help
cater the needs of the people especially those who are confess crimes which
they did not commit such as cases where they are wrongfully convicted due
to extra judicial confessions.

REFERENCE:

Rules  of  Court  Rule  130,  Section  26.  

 
Willard B. Riano, Evidence (Bar Lecture Series), (2019)

M.C Slough, Fordham Law Review, Confessions and Admissions, available

at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144222858.pdf

Rules  of  Court  Rule  133,  Section  3  

 
People of the Philippines v Dacanay, G.R No. 216064
 
People of the Philippines V Nazario et. al, G.R No. L-470
                                                                                                               
10  Blacks Law Dictionary, available at https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blacks-
Law-Dictionery.pdf
People of the Philippines V Muleta, G.R No. 130189
Blacks Law Dictionary, available at https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/Blacks-Law-Dictionery.pdf