ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

Confession may be defined as 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

The confession of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged,

or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence
against him. (Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 33)

Confession to be admissible must be:

a) voluntary;
b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;
c) express; and
d) in writing. (People v. Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710)

Extrajudicial Confession are those which are made by a party elsewhere than
before a magistrate or in court.

An extrajudicial confession may be given either before or during the custodial

investigation stage.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not

apply to in-custody confessions. And while jurisprudence provides that
extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, the condition for this
presumption is that the prosecution is able to show that the constitutional
requirements safeguarding an accuseds rights during custodial investigation
have been strictly complied with, especially when the extrajudicial confession
has been denounced. (People v. Sayaboc, G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004)

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE BY SEVERAL PERSONS

CHARGED WITH A CRIME

When extrajudicial confessions had been made by several persons charged

with crime, and there could have been no collusion with reference to the
several confessions, the fact that said confessions and the testimony of an
accomplice as a witness against the other defendants are in all material
respects identical, tends to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice.

Example:

A, B, C and D were charged with a crime. A and B confessed their guilt

without having a previous opportunity for conference, or without proof that they
could confer previously. C testified as a witness for the prosecution against D. The
confessions of A and B and the testimony of C are identical in all material respects.
This fact corroborates the testimony of C against D. It should be noted that in this
case the two confessions in themselves are not considered as corroborative evidence,
but the extrinsic fact of their being identical in all material respects with the
testimony of C despite the impossibility of collusion among the three declarants, is
confirmatory of C's testimony.

REMEDIAL LAW II
Report in Evidence
1 Page Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
LLB Fourth Year
 An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Rules of Court,
Rule 133, Sec. 3)

REASON FOR THE RULE:

The rule excluding an extrajudicial confession of the accused unless there is

independent proof of the corpus delicti is intended to guard against
convictions upon false confessions of guilt.

Thus, in People v. Barlis,118 the accused who validly gave a statement during
custodial investigation confessing to the commission of homicide and robbery
was convicted of homicide only and acquitted of the robbery charge in the
absence of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of robbery.

REMEDIAL LAW II
Report in Evidence
2 Page Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
LLB Fourth Year