ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS (Regalado, 2008)

Admission Confession
A statement of fact which does not A statement of fact which involves an
involve an acknowledgment of guilt acknowledgment of guilt or liability
or liability
May be made by third persons and Can be made only by the party himself
in certain cases, are admissible and, in some instances, are admissible
against a party against his co-accused

Applies to both criminal and civil Applies only to criminal cases

cases
May be express or tacit Must be express

Note: An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the former being a broader
term because, accordingly, a confession is also an “admission… by the accused of the fact
charged against him or of some fact essential to the charge” (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). A
confession is a specific type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgement of guilt.
As used, the term admission refers to an acknowledgement of facts which, although may be
incriminating, falls short of an admission of guilt (Riano, 2016).

JUDICIAL ADMISSION VS. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION

Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions

Those made in the course of the Those made out of court or in a
proceeding in the same case judicial proceeding other than the one
under consideration

Do not require proof and may be Regarded as evidence and must be

contradicted only by showing that it offered as such, otherwise the court
was made through palpable mistake will not consider it in deciding the
or that no such admission was case.
made
(Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Judicial admissions need not be Requires formal offer for it to be
offered in evidence since it is not considered
evidence. It is superior to evidence
and shall be considered by the court
as established.

Conclusive upon the person Rebuttable

admitting
 Admissible even if self-serving Not admissible if self-serving

Subject to cross-examination Not subject to cross-examination

Offer of compromise as admission of liability

CIVIL CASE CRIMINAL CASE

It is NOT an admission of any GR: It may be received in evidence
liability and is NOT admissible as an implied admission of guilt
against the offeror (Ibid.).
(Sec. 27, Rule 130). XPNs:

1. In quasi-offenses where there is

no criminal intent (negligence), such
as reckless imprudence;
2. In criminal cases allowed by law
to be compromised such as:
a. NIRC (Sec. 7c) – The CIR has the
power to compromise minor criminal
violations as may be determined by
the Secretary of Finance;
b. LGC (Sec. 408) – Allowed in
minor offenses whose penalties do
not exceed one year;
c. RPC (Art. 266-C) – In cases of
marital rape, where subsequent
forgiveness by the wife extinguishes
the criminal action or penalty
(Suarez and De la Banda, 2006).

NOTE: No compromise is valid in the following cases

1. Civil status of persons;

2. Validity of a marriage or legal separation;
3. Any ground for legal separation;
4. Future support;
5. Jurisdiction of courts;
6. Future legitime;
7. Habeas corpus; and
8. Election cases (Herrera, 1999)
ILLUSTRATION:

Q: What is the underlying reason for the adoption of the rule against the
admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases?

A: It is for the reason that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should
endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise (Art.
2029, NCC). During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider the possibility of
an amicable settlement. (Sec. 2(a), Rule 18)

Q: Berting was accused of having raped Lisa. Rule on the admissibility of an offer
of Berting to marry Lisa.

A: Berting’s offer to marry Lisa is admissible in evidence as an implied admission of guilt

because rape cases are not allowed to be compromised. (Sec. 27, Rule 130)

Q: Lloydie, while driving his car, ran over Bea. Lloydie visited Bea at the hospital
and offered to pay for her hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal
case against Lloydie for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence,
Lloydie’s insurance carrier offered to pay for the injuries and damages suffered by
Bea. The offer was rejected because Bea considered the amount offered as
inadequate.

1. Is the offer by Lloydie to pay the hospitalization expenses of Bea admissible in

evidence?

2. Is the offer by Lloydie’s insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of
Bea admissible in evidence?

A:
1. NO. It is not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both the civil and criminal cases
(Sec. 27(4), Rule 130).
2. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance company is based on the contract of
insurance and is not admissible in evidence against the accused because it was not offered
by the accused but by the insurance company which is not his agent.
ADMISSIBILITY OF PLEA OR OFFER

OFFER OR PLEA ADMISSIBILITY

Plea of guilty later withdrawn Not admissible in evidence against
by the accused the accused who made the plea

Offer by the accused to plead Not admissible in evidence against

guilty to a lesser offense but the accused who made the offer
unaccepted by prosecution

Offer to pay or payment of Not admissible in evidence as proof of

medical, hospital or other civil or criminal liability for the injury
expenses occasioned by injury (Suarez and De la Banda, Evidence:
(Good Samaritan Rule) A Lawyer’s Companion, 2006 ed.)

UNACCEPTED OFFER

An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or

specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual
production and tender of the money, instrument, or property (Sec. 35, Rule 130).

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE

Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet

This principle literally means “things done between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.; Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor
Advertising Services, Inc. v. Potongan, G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005).

Reason for the rule on res inter alios acta

On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon
himself and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. It would not only
be rightly inconvenient but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts
of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him (People v.
Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003).

Two (2) branches of res inter alios acta rule

1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another

(Sec. 28, Rule 130);
2. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130).

Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first branch)

1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130);

2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule 130); and
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130).

NOTE: The rule has reference to extrajudicial declarations. Hence, statements made in open
court by a witness implicating persons aside from him are admissible as declarations from
one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to. (Riano, 2016)

The testimony of the accused against his co-accused in open court is considered as
admissible testimony and not subject of the res inter alios acta rule since such testimony is
subject to cross examination.

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: Mau sue Kenstar Travel Corporation for breach of contract on the ground that
when she went on a European tour, there was no European tour manager, the
Filipino guide was a first timer, and the hotels where they were billeted were not
first class. Kenstar contended that the tour was satisfactory because out of 18
participants, only Mau actually complained. Can the fact that the other participants
in the tour filed no case against Kenstar be used as evidence to show that B has no
cause of action?

A: NO. Rule 130, Sec. 28 of the Rules of Court provides that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. The failure of the other
participants to file and action should not prejudice Mau (Geraldez v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 108253, February 23, 1994).

ADMISSION BY A PARTY
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him (Sec. 26, Rule 130).

Requisites for the admissibility of an admission

1. The act, declaration or omission must have been made by a party or by one by whom he
is legally bound;
2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact; and
3. The admission may only be given in evidence against him (Ibid.; Herrera, 1999).

Self-serving declaration

It is one which has been made extra-judicially by the party to favor his interest. It is not
admissible in evidence because they are inherently untrustworthy, and would open the door
to fraud and fabrication of testimony (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, 84
Phil. 330; People v. Demiar, 108 Phil. 651).

NOTE: Self-serving evidence are inadmissible because the adverse party is not given the
opportunity for cross-examination, and their admission would encourage fabrication of
testimony. (Hernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 104874, December 14, 1993)

Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove the existence of agricultural tenancy. It is
self-serving. It will not suffice to prove consent of the owner. Independent evidence is
necessary. (Rodriguez v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June 8, 2011)

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: After working as a laborer for 43 years, A resigned from Rufina Patis Factory.
Thereafter, he availed of his pension from the SSS and executed an affidavit
stating that he was never re-employed. However, when he filed a claim for
retirement benefits from his employer before the NLRC, he alleged that he
continued working for Rufina Patis Factory for 4 more years. Can Rufina Patis
Factory use A’s affidavit executed before the SSS as an admission against his
interest?

A: YES. The document is the best evidence which affords greater certainty of the facts in
dispute. While the affidavit may have facilitated the release of the retirement benefits from
SSS, hence, beneficial to him at that time, it may still be considered as admission against
interest since the disserving quality of the admission is judged as of the time it is used or
offered in evidence and not when such admission was made. Thus, it matters not that the
admission was self-serving at the time it was made, so long as it is against A’s present
claim (Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain, G.R. No. 146202, July 14, 2004).

CLASSIFICATIONS OF ADMISSIONS
Express It is a positive statement or act.

Implied It is one which may be inferred from the declarations or acts

of a person.

Judicial When made in the course of a judicial proceeding.

Extrajudicial When made out of court or even in a proceeding other than

the one under consideration.

Adoptive It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another

person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
A third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it. Adoptive admission may occur
when a party:
1. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made
by another;
2. Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
3. Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of
another;
4. Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by
another but ignores further points which he or she has heard
the other make; or
5. Reads and signs a written statement made by another
(Republic v. Kendrick Development Corp., G.R. No. 149576,
August 8, 2006)

(Riano, 2016)

ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY

GR: The act, declaration or omission made out of court of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him but may not be given in evidence against another person.
XPN: The act or omission of one party made out of court may be used as evidence against
another when its admission is made by:
1. A partner;
2. An agent;
3. A joint owner;
4. A joint debtor;
5. A person jointly interested with the party;
6. A conspirator;
7. A privy or successor in interest (Suarez and De la Banda, 2006).

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: Francisco was charged with violating PD No. 1612 or the Anti Fencing Decree.
Among the evidence submitted against him was the testimony of Jovita in a
previous criminal case wherein the accused therein, Pacita, was convicted of theft
and where she stated that Francisco bought stolen jewelries from her. Can the
admission in the previous case be used against Francisco?
A: NO. Francisco was not a party to the previous criminal case where Pacita was the
accused. The acts or declarations of a person are not admissible against a third party. Only
parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court (Francisco v. People, G.R. No.
146584, July 12, 2004). Without presenting Jovita to testify on her admission during the
previous criminal case, even if made in a previous judicial proceeding, it remains an
extrajudicial admission without any effect, insofar as the present action against Francisco is
concerned.

ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority
and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130).

REQUISITES FOR AN ADMISSION OF A PARTNER TO BIND HIS CO-PARTNERS OR

FOR AN AGENT TO BIND HIS PRINCIPAL
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within the scope of his
authority;
2. The admission was made during the existence of the partnership or agency; and
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by independent evidence other than
such act or declaration (Ibid.). The Articles of Incorporation or a Special Power of Attorney
may be presented for such purpose (Suarez and De la Banda, 2000).

NOTE: The same rule applies to an act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor or other
person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130).

DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIP

GR: Admission made after a partnership has been dissolved do not fall within the exception
because such are made when the partnership ceased to exist.

XPN: Where the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-
partner in said winding up. (Regalado, 2008)

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: The Republic of the Philippines filed a forfeiture case against the heirs of the late former
President Marcos. In one of her manifestations before the Sandiganbayan, Imelda Marcos
admitted that she owned 90% of the Swiss bank deposits and only 10% belongs to the
estate of the late President Marcos. The other heirs also made separate admissions in their
pleadings. What is the value of these admissions?

A: The individual and separate admissions of each respondent bind all of them pursuant to
Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The declaration of a party is admissible against a
party whenever a “privity of estate” exists between the declarant and the party. It generally
denotes a succession of rights. Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents in this
case. Where several co-parties exist, who are jointly interested in the subject matter of the
controversy, the admission of one is competent against all (Republicans v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act of declaration (Sec. 30, Rule 130).

Conspiracy

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Herrera, 1999).

NOTE: Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement therefore of
one may be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an exception to the rule of res
inter alios acta (Riano, 2016)

Requisites of an admission by a conspirator

1. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy;
2. The declaration or act must relate to the purpose and object of the conspiracy; and
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration or act
(evidence aliunde) (Sec. 30, Rule 130).

NOTE: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or admission and not to testimony at trial
where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(People v. Baharan, G.R. No. L- 188314, January 10, 2011)

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: A was convicted of robbery with homicide. Among the evidence used to convict her was
the extrajudicial confession of her co-accused, an alleged co-conspirator, which confession
was made with the assistance of counsel. Can such admission be used against A?

A: NO. In order for such admission to be admissible in evidence, there must be independent
evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to prove conspiracy. There being no
independent evidence to prove conspiracy, A’s culpability was not sufficiently established
(People v. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003).

Extrajudicial admissions made after the conspiracy had terminated

GR: Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and
even before trial are not admissible against the co-conspirator.

XPNs:

1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or impliedly agreed

therein;
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial
confessions made by the co-conspirator after their apprehension;
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of the witness; or
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s
participation in the offense (Regalado, 2008).

When extrajudicial admission becomes a judicial admission

While it is true that statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are

admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy, if the declarant repeats
the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making
the testimony admissible as to both conspirators (People v. Baharan, G.R. No. 188314,
January 10, 2011).

ADMISSION BY PRIVIES

Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former
(Sec. 31, Rule 130).

Privies

They refer to persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any
relation to another (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.).

Requisites of an admission by privies

1. One (successor in interest) derives title to property from another (predecessor in

interest) through any legal means of transfer.
2. A statement, act or declaration is made by the predecessor in interest in relation to
the property and while holding the title thereof.
3. Said statement, act or declaration is evidence against his successor in interest (Sec.
31, Rule 130; Suarez and De la Banda, 2006).
ILLUSTRATION:

Q: Del Monte Development Corporation filed a case to be adjudged owner of a piece of land
against Ababa claiming that it acquired a lot from Lucero in 1964. As a defense, Ababa
presented a document executed by Lucero in 1968 to settle the controversy. Can the
document bind Del Monte as successor in interest of Lucero?

A: NO. The admission of a former of a property must have been made while he was the
owner thereof in order that such admission may be binding upon the present owner. Hence,
Lucero’s act of executing the 1968 document have no binding effect on Del Monte, the
ownership of the land having passed to it in 1964 (Gevero v. IAC, G.R. No. 77029, August
30, 1990).

ADMISSION BY SILENCE

There is admission by silence when a party does or says nothing when he hears or
observers an act or declaration made in his presence when such act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him
to do so. Such may be given in evidence against him (Sec. 32, Rule 130).

Requisites of an admission by silence

1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person;
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it (People v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220);
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so, if the
statement was not true;
5. The facts were within his knowledge; and
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the
issue (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978; Sec. 32, Rule 130;
Regalado, 2008).

NOTE: The rule on admission by silence does not apply when a person is under a custodial
investigation for the commission of an offense should not be construed as an admission by
silence because a person has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right
(Sec.12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Riano, 2009). However, if it is not the police
investigators who confronted the accused but the owner of a carnapped vehicle, the silence
of one after being implicated by the other accused serves as an admission by silence as he
did not refute the statements of his co-accused despite having heard of them (People v.
Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003).

Principle of adoptive admission

It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to

treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other
person. The basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made
(Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, April 3, 2001).

NOTE: One good example of adoptive admission is the alleged admissions made by
President Estrada when his options had dwindled when, according to the Angara Diary, the
Armed Forces withdrew its support from him as President and Commander-in-Chief. Thus,
Angara had to allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advise Estrada to consider the
option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Estrada did not object to the suggested option but
simply said he could never leave the country. According to the court, his silence on this and
other related suggestions can be taken as adoptive admissions by him.

CONFESSIONS

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 (Sec. 33, Rule
130).

Requisites for the admissibility of a confession

1. It must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt. (U.S. v.

Corrales, 28 Phil. 362);
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense (U.S. v. Flores, 26 Phil.
262);
3. It must have been given voluntarily (People v. Nishishima, 57 Phil. 26);
4. It must have been intelligently made (Bilaan v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-18179, June 29,
1962), the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of his act (U.S. v.
Agatea, 40 Phil. 596); and
 5. There must have been no violation of Sec.12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution (Regalado,
2008).

NOTE: A confession to a person, who is not a police officer, is admissible in evidence. The
declaration acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against the declarant. Such admissions are not
covered by Secs. 12 (1) and (3), Article III, 1987 Constitution, because they were not
extracted while he was under custodial investigation (People v. Davao, et al., G.R. No.
174660, May 30, 2011).

6. It must 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,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge,
district school supervisor or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him (Sec. 2
(d), R.A. 7438).

CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSIONS
Judicial Confession One made by the accused before an
open court in which the case is
pending and in the course of legal
proceedings therein and, by itself,
can sustain conviction and is
admissible against one’s co-accused.
It is governed by Secs. 1,3 & 4 of
Rule 116.
Extrajudicial Confession One made in any other place or
occasion other than the court where
the case is pending and cannot
sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti. It is generally binding only
upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. It
is governed by Sec. 33 of Rule 130
(Regalado,
2008).

NOTE: If the accused admits having

committed the act in question but
alleges a justification therefor, such
as absence of criminal intent, the
same is merely an admission (Ibid.).
Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions

GR: An extrajudicial confession is not admissible against the confessor’s co-accused. Said
confession is hearsay evidence and violative of the res inter alios acta rule.

XPN: It may be admitted in evidence against his co-accused in the following cases:

1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to the extrajudicial confession;

2. In case of interlocking confessions;
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised
of such confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by one of
the accused and said confession is used only as corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; and
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence
on record (Regalado, 2008)

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to witnesses
attesting that he was the last person seen with the woman when she was still alive, Carlito
was arrested within 5 hours after the discovery of the cadaver and brought to the police
station. The crime laboratory determined that the woman had been raped. While in police
custody, Carlito broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel and orally confessed to
the investigator that he had raped and killed the woman, detailing the acts he had
performed up to his dumping of the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseful.
During the trial, the State presented the investigator to testify the oral confession of Carlito.
Is the oral confession admissible as evidence of guilt?

A: NO. The oral confession is not admissible as evidence of guilt. The confession is in the
nature of an extrajudicial confession before an investigator while under custodial
investigation. Hence, the statutory provisions under R.A. 7438 (Sec. 2 (d)) will have to be
complied with.
Under said law, 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. An oral confession does not comply with the mandatory provisions of the law.
Under R.A. 7438, the confession is inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding (Sec. 2(d),
R.A. 7438; Riano, 2016).

Requirements for an admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial

investigation to be admitted in evidence

1. The admission must be voluntary (Sec. 12 (1), 1987 Constitution);

2. The admission must be in writing (R.A. 7438);
3. The admission must be made with the assistance of competent, independent counsel
(Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution);
4. The admission must be express (People v. Prinsipe, G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002);
5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence and to counsel, such waiver must be
in writing, executed with the assistance of competent, independent counsel (R.A.
7438).

Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions

It states that extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion which are
identical with each other in their essential details and corroborated by other evidence
against the persons implicated, are admissible to show the probability of the latter’s actual
participation in the commission of the crime (People v. Mulit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8,
2008).

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: 4 of the 6 suspects in the crime of kidnapping with double murder executed separate
extrajudicial statements confessing to the crime and implicating the others. The statements
were independently executed but are identical with each other in their material details.
There are also distinct similarities in the narration of events leading to the killings. Is the
extrajudicial confession admissible against the others?
A: YES. The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making
it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is the rule on the interlocking
confessions where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said
several confessions but the fact that the statements are in all material respects identical, is
(1) confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other
persons implicated therein. (2) 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 (3) 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. (People v. Lising, G.R. No. 106210-11,
January 30, 1998).

SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE

(2nd Branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule)

GR: Evidence that one did or did not a certain thins at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130). This
is also referred to as the “Propensity Rule.”

XPNs: Evidence of similar or previous acts may be received to prove the following:

1. Specific intent;
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
6. Scheme;
7. Habit;
8. Custom;
9. Usage; and
10. The like.

Purpose of the rule

Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are
not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant
issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it. Hence,
the evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and
protracting the trial, and prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. (Cruz v.
CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998).

ILLUSTRATION:

Q: Accused was charged with 2 counts of kidnapping. Since the 2 incidents happened
almost simultaneously, the cases were consolidated and joint trial ensued. In the first case,
accused tied the hands of the 2 victims and pointed their guns at them. In the second case,
however, it appears that the 2 victims were not physically threatened or tied. Can evidence
in the first case be used in the second to prove that accused had the intent to deprive the
victims of liberty?

A: YES. The evidence shows the intent of the accused. That the victim’s hands were not
tied nor guns poked at their sides when they were taken by the accused in the second case
do not conclusively preclude the deprivation of liberty. The circumstances surrounding the
taking of the victims in the first case, particularly the previous conduct of accused in
kidnapping them, plainly demonstrates their intent to likewise deprive the victims in the
other case, of their liberty (People v. Dadles, G.R. No. 118620-21, September 1, 1997).

SAMPLE OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

(http://www.pnp.gov.ph/images/Forms/DIDM/ExtraJudicialConfessionEnglish.pdf)

NOTE: This only serves as a guide and questioning may not be limited only to elicit
voluntary information found therein.

SWORN STATEMENT OF ____(NAME OF AFFIANT)_____ THAT WAS FREELY AND

VOLUNTARILY GIVEN TO ___(RANK AND NAME OF POLICE OFFICER)__, MEMBER OF
THE _____(OFFICE NAME)_____, LOCATED AT _____________________, THIS
____ DAY OF ___________, 2016 AT ABOUT ________ IN THE
 (MORNING/AFTERNOON) IN THE PRESENCE OF ______ (NAME OF COUNSEL)______
HIS/HER CHOSEN COUNSEL OR COUNSEL GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, TO ASSIST HIM/HER IN THE GIVING OF
STATEMENTS AND _______(OTHER WITNESS/ES)____________,
____________________.

COVENANT: Mr./Ms./Mrs. _____________________, hereby volunteer yourself to

give sworn statement about your personal knowledge about ________________ that
transpired on _____________ at _________________________. Before you will
give your sworn statements, I would like to inform you of your rights enshrined
under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as follows:

1. That you have the right to remain silent and any information that you will give
can be used as evidence against you in any court of the Philippines;
2. That you have a right to have a counsel preferable of your own choice, if you
cannot afford the services of the counsel, the Government of the Philippines will
give you one to assist you;
3. That you have the right to know why you are here in our Office; and
4. That you have the right to be informed of all your Constitutional rights
enumerated above.

QUESTION: After you were informed of all your Constitutional rights, are you
willing and voluntarily sign your signature to attest that you were informed and fully
understand your rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution?

ANSWER: Yes, Sir/Mam _______________________.

AFFIRMATION
I HEREBY AFFIRMED that I, ________________________________ was informed
and fully explained of all my rights enshrined under the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
which I understand as follows:
 1. That I have the right to remain silent and any information that I will give
can be used as evidence against me in any court of the Philippines;
2. That I have a right to have a counsel preferable of my own choice, if I
cannot afford the services of the counsel, the Government of the
Philippines will give one to assist me;
3. That I have the right to know why I am at the _____(name of
Office)________; and
4. That I have the right to be informed of all my Constitutional rights
enumerated above.

______________________
_
Affiant

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

________________________
Assisting Counsel of the Affiant
Attorney Roll No.__________
SWORN STATEMENT OF _______________________, THAT WAS GIVEN FREELY
AND VOLUNTARILY TO __________________, A MEMBER OF
___________________________ AT _____________________.

QUESTION : Do you have a counsel to assist you?

ANSWER : (Yes/No)
QUESTION : If you are given a counsel by this Office to assist you, are you
willing to accept his/her services in assisting you?
ANSWER : Yes, I will accept his/her services in assisting me as my
counsel.

HERE, ______(name of counsel)________, a lawyer from _____(place of

lawyer)________, member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), is
 given to you by this Office and will provide his services to assist you in your
confession.

(______name of assisting lawyer_________), HERE is (_______name of

affiant ______) that you will be assisting and provide your services as his/her
counsel in his/her free and voluntary confession to this Office.

At this juncture (Name of Affiant) and said counsels conferred with each other
and after a short while, affiant agreed to accept the services of said counsel,
(Name of Assisting Counsel). Likewise expressed their conformity and agreed
to serve as the affiant’s counsels to advise and assist him in the execution of
his affidavit. (Name of Assisting Counsel) informed affiant about the possible
consequences upon him of said affidavit and affiant still expressed his desire
to execute the same. Hence, the following:

1. Q : After you are fully informed and explained of all your rights under the
1987 Philippine Constitution in relation to your voluntary confession, are you
willing to freely and voluntarily give your statements truthfully and that all your
statements are true and nothing but the truth only?
A : Yes. All will be true statements.

2. Q : What is your name, age, address and other personal circumstances?

A : ____________________________.

3. Q : What is your highest educational attainment?

A : ____________________________.

4. Q : Do you know how to talk, read and understand English?

A : ____________________________.

5. Q : What is your present work/profession?

A : ____________________________.
 SWORN STATEMENT OF ______________________, THAT WAS GIVEN FREELY
AND VOLUNTARILY TO ______________________, A MEMBER OF
_________________ AT ________________________.

6. Q : What are the reasons why you are voluntarily came to this Office?
A : Because I want to change my life and I want to freely and voluntarily
give information relative to the illegal activities of my previous drug syndicate.

[KNOWLEDGE/INFORMATION ABOUT ILLEGAL DRUG NETWORK]

7. Q : If that is the case, can you tell us all your knowledge/information

about the illegal drugs activities of your gang?
A : Yes sir. I am previously a member of the ___________. We are
__________ members in the gang. Our leader is ____________, an AWOL PNP
Officer. The other gang members are ______, ________, _______, __________,
__________ at ___________. Every one of us carry caliber .45 pistols for our
protection. We have also two plate number ______________. Our gang
controlled the marketing of illegal drugs known as “SHABU” all over ________.
We usually peddled 5-10 kilograms of “SHABU” in a week.

8. Q : What is your function in the gang?

A : I’m the one looking for pushers in the street level.

9. Q : If you look for pushers, what did you do?

A : I will set a meeting and talk with them on the drug deal.

10. Q : What happened if they agreed with the drug deal with your gang?
A : They will become our pusher member and they have the privilege to
use “SHABU” in our den for free, provided they will sell our item “SHABU” and
remit the proceeds to the gang every day.

11. Q : How many grams do you give to your pushers every day?
A : I give each of them 50 grams.
12. Q : How much per gram of your “SHABU”?
A : We give only 200.00 per gram to our pushers.

13. Q : You said that your gang has a drug den, where it is located and who
manage it?
A : It is located at _________________________. Our leader
_________________ manage our drug den.

SWORN STATEMENT OF _________________________, THAT WAS GIVEN

FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TO ____________________________, A MEMBER
OF __________________ AT _____________________.

14. Q : Who are your street pushers/peddlers?

A : As far as I remember, they are ________, _________, _______,
__________, and ____________.

15. Q : Where did they live?

A : __________ live in _________, ____________at ___________, while
__________ at ____________. I did not know where the two pushers live.

16. Q : You have elaborated your pushing activities, may I know where do you
get your supply of “SHABU”?
A : Most of our “SHABU” came from ______________.

17. Q : Can you specify on whom do you get your “SHABU”?

A : Being in the underground world, I have heard many big names but
there is always a common name I know as the main supplier, his name is
_________________, a Filipino-Chinese national.

18. Q : Now, that you mentioned ______________, as the main supplier, how
big his illegal drug activities and how powerful or influential he is?
A : His illegal drugs trade is a multi-billion underworld business. He has
connections in China and here in the Philippines, both political and law
enforcement.
19. Q : Do you know who are his connections here in the Philippines?
A : As far as I know, he is very close to _________________, a three star
general in Camp Crame. Also with ___________________, a Congressman in
Cebu.

20. Q : How do you know him?

A : Sometimes in 2015, I and ____________ were introduced during a
special gathering of a local politician friend.

21. Q : On your first meeting, what were your agenda?

A : He talks about illegal drugs business in the Philippines. He looked for
some trusted persons to deal with the illegal drugs. He asked me if I can be his
partner here in the Philippines, but I refused his offer. However, I assured him
that I can be one of his primary pushers.
22. Q : Now that you’re on the deal of pushing his “SHABU”, how it is done to
have you the illegal drugs?
A : I pick up the “SHABU” in the port. He calls me that his “SHABU”
arrives and available for pick up in the port, there we met in the port and gives
me the volume I needed.

SWORN STATEMENT OF _____________________, THAT WAS GIVEN FREELY

AND VOLUNTARILY TO _________________, A MEMBER OF
________________________ AT ________________________.

23. Q : You said that the “SHABU” arrives in the port, where does it came
from?
A : The “SHABU” came from main land China.

24. Q : How and where it is transported?

A : Mr. (name of the main supplier) has a legitimate cargo business from
China to Manila and vice versa. He owned 3 vessels. Every time each vessel
arrived in the Manila port it carries large volumes of “SHABU”, alongside with his
legal cargo business.
25. Q : What are the vessels names?
A : It is MV _________, MV _________ and MV ___________.

26. Q : Where and when these vessels ducked here in the Philippines?
A : Usually the vessels arrived on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday at pier
25, Port of Manila.

27. Q : ________xxxxOTHER CONNECTING QUESTIONSxxxxx_____.

A : ________xxxx ANSWERS xxxx______________.

28. Q : Are you willing to help us find and bring the other members of your
gang to justice?
A : Yes. I am willing to help in order to stop their illegal drug activities.

29. Q : For the meantime, I don’t have further questions, do you have any
statements to add or take away on this affidavit?
A : I don’t have sir for the meantime.

30. Q : Were you threatened, promised or bribed to do this confession?

A : No sir. I made it voluntarily with my own free will.

31. T : Are you willing to sign this affidavit consisting of six (6) pages, to
certify that all the statements you made are true.
S : Yes sir.

---------END OF STATEMENT -------------

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _____________, 2020 at

________________________. Further, I certify that I personally examined the
herein affiant that he voluntarily executed and fully understood his statements.
_____________________
Administering Officer