Categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a
criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation.
If the accused admits having committed the act in question but
alleges a justification therefore, the same is merely an

There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil
case where the party expressly admits his liability.

Confession may either be oral or in writing and if in
writing, it need not be under oath.

The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made while the
accused was under arrest does not render it inadmissible where
the same was made and admitted prior to the 1973 Constitution.

A confession may either be judicial or extrajudicial.

Judicial Confession
One made before a court in which the case is pending and in
the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can
sustain a conviction even in capital offenses.

Extrajudicial Confession
O in any other ne madeplace or occasion and cannot sustain a
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti.
This section refers to extrajudicial confessions.

1. The confession must involve an express and categorical
   acknowledgment of guilt.
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense
3. The confession must have been given voluntarily
4. the confession must have been intelligently made, the accused
   realizing the importance or legal significance of this act.
5. There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. III of
   the 1987 Constitution.

Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the
defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained
by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency.

The Following Circumstances Have Been Held To Be Indicia Of The
Voluntariness Of A Confession:

      The confession contains details which the
      police could not have supplied or invented.

      The confession contains details which could
      have been known only to the accused.

      The confession contains statements which
      are exculpatory in nature.

      The confession contains corrections made by
      the accused in his handwriting or with his
      initials and which corrected facts are best
      known to the accused.

      The accused is sufficiently educated and
      aware of the consequences of his act.

      It was made in the presence of impartial
      witnesses with the accused acting normally
      on that occasion.

      There is lack of motive on the part of the
      investigators to extract a confession, with
      improbabilities and inconsistencies in the
      attempt of the accused to repudiate his

      The accused questioned the voluntariness of
      the confession only for the first time at the
      trial of the case.

      The contents of the confession were affirmed
      by the accused in his voluntary participation
      in the reenactment of the crime, as shown by
      his silent acquiescence thereto.

      The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by
      other subsequent facts.

      After his confession, the accused was subjected to
      physical examination and there were no signs of
      maltreatment or the accused never complained thereof,
      but not where he failed to complain to the judge on a
      reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he
      was still in the custody of his torturers.

If the extrajudicial confession was obtained before the effectivity
of the 1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973, the same is
admissible in evidence even if the confessant was not informed
of his right to silence and to counsel as this constitutional
mandate should be given a prospective, and not a retrospective
effective and this doctrine applies even if the confession was
made while the accused was under arrest.

Under the current rule, the confession is inadmissible if there
is a violation of the accused’s right to counsel and to silence.

Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession
of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether he was familiar
with the provisions of then Section 20, Art. IV of the 1973
Constitution and he answered in the affirmative, and the statement
which he signed states that he had been apprised of his
constitutional rights with the warning that anything he would
say might be used for or against him in court, such extrajudicial
confession is admissible in evidence, especially where he thereafter
failed to impugn the same by not taking the witness stand although
assisted by counsel.

Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without
counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately
after the assault, the same is admissible not under the confession
rule but as part of the res gestae, aside from the consideration
that no custodial investigation was involved.

Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights
and asked if he understood what he was told, but he was never
asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such
rights, his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible.

General Rule
The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon
himself and is not admissible against his co-accused.

1. If the latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession
   by not questioning its truthfulness, as where it was made in his
   presence and he did not remonstrate against his being implicated
2. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed
   identical confessions without conclusion, commonly known as
   interlocking confessions which confessions are corroborated by
   other evidence and without contradiction by the co-accused who
   was present.
3. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed
   identical confessions without conclusion, commonly known as
   interlocking confessions, which confessions are corroborated
   by other evidence, and without contradiction but the co-accused
   who was present.
4. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant
   after being apprised of such confession
5. 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 a corroborating evidence.
6. 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 a corroborating evidence.
7. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to
   show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator.
8. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant or
9. Where the co-conspirator’s extra judicial confession is
   corroborated by other evidence of record.

This section, as now amended, declares as admissible the
confession of the accused not only with respect to the offense
charged but also any offense necessarily included therein. On
the other hand, the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that,
illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the
confessant or the admitter, hence they are admissible against the
persons who violated the constitutional prohibition against
obtaining illegal confessions or admissions.

Distinguish Extrajudicial Confessions From Admissions.
Suggested Answer: A confession, as distinguished from admission,
is a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily and
without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that
he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime.
The term, admission, on the other hand, is usually applied in
criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not
directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the
accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he
is charged. (U.S. v. Corrales, 28 Phil. 365)

If an Accused executed a valid extrajudicial confession, may he
be convicted of the crime charges if the Prosecution adduced,
in addition to the confession, only circumstancial evidence to
prove corpus delicti? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
YES. Section 3 of Rule 133 states that a mere voluntary extrajudicial
confession uncorroborated by independent proof of the corpus delicti
is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. There must
be independent proof of the corpus delicti. The evidence may be
circumstantial but just the same, there should be some evidence
substantiating the confession. (US vs. De la Crux, 2 Phil. 148)

Would you answer to the immediately preceding question be the
same if the Prosecution adduced, an addition to the confession,
only substantial evidence to prove corpus delicti? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
YES. What is required is that some evidence apart from the
confession would tend to show that the crime was in fact
committed. This may be supplied by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.