01 People vs. Agustin
Admission is usually
G.R. No. 110290. January 25, 1995
TOPIC: Confession
1. 1986: 3 ex-military men were charged with murder, frustrated murder, and
attempted murder for ambushing the vehicle of Dr. Bayquen in Baguio City;
killing Dr. Bayquen and his passenger and injuring two companions in the
backseat. One suspect confessed his participation as the gunman and his co-
conspirators’ participation---in which he included Agustin as the fourth
suspect.
2. 1987: Agustin, a farmer whose highest educational attainment was grade
four, was picked up in Pangasinan by military personnel. (Red flag 1: no
arrest warrant)
3. It was alleged that he was made to kneel at gunpoint along Kennon Road,
forcing him to confess his participation to the crime. He was then taken to
the fiscal’s office in Baguio.
4. At the office, his Miranda rights were read to him and the fiscal offered the
services of one Atty. Cajucom as his counsel. (Red flag 2: Fiscal did not ask
if he is waiving his right to remain silent which must be in writing and if he
has a lawyer of his own choice. Violation of Sec. 12, Bill of Rights)
5. Cajucom, speaking in Filipino and English, briefed Agustin of his rights as
the latter “wishes to confess”. However, Agustin can only speak Ilokano;
and that Cajucom failed to inform Agustin that he is testifying as an accused
not a mere witness. (Red flag 3: Accused was not able to comprehend his
rights. Comprehension, not merely informing one’s rights is the objective.)
6. During the custodial investigation conducted by the fiscal (red flag 4: still a
police matter; no information filed against Agustin at that time), in the
presence of Cajucom, a stenographer, and the arresting military personnel
(red flag 5!), Agustin “confessed”, out of fear (allegedly), that he knows the
2 suspects and that he was with the 3 suspects during the ambush.
7. After the interrogation, Agustin and Cajucom signed the stenographic notes
written in a yellow pad. However, the transcript of those notes was not
signed and acknowledged by Agustin and Cajucom. (Red flag 6: it’s the
transcript that must be signed and acknowledged.)
8. Trial against Agustin ensued and was convicted of murder based on his
extrajudicial “confession”.
9. On appeal, Agustin contends that his extrajudicial statement during the
custodial investigation should not be treated as an extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial statement is a confession. NO.
WON such statement should be admitted into evidence. NO.
Agustin acquitted.
HELD:
 The assailed extrajudicial statement is not an extrajudicial confession. It is
only an extrajudicial admission.
 In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt.
applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not
directly involve an acknowledgement of guilt of the accused or of the
criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged.
 An admission is something less than a confession, and is but an
acknowledgement of some fact or circumstance which in itself is
insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the
ultimate fact of guilt.
 Nothing in Agustin’s statement indicates that he expressly acknowledged
his guilt; he merely admitted some facts or circumstances which in
themselves are insufficient to authorize a conviction and which can only
tend to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
 However, even if such statement is an admission, it cannot be admitted as
evidence because it was taken in violation of Sec. 12 of the Bill of Rights:
(1) 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 the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
 He was not categorically informed that he could waive his rights to
remain silent and to counsel and that this waiver must be in writing
and in the presence of his counsel. He had, in fact, waived his right to
remain silent by agreeing to be investigated. Yet, no written waiver of
such right appears in the transcript and no other independent evidence
was offered to prove its existence. (Red flag 2)
 Agustin’s extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence because
it was obtained in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the
Constitution.
 Since it is the only evidence which links him to the crimes of which
he was convicted, he must then be acquitted.