Understanding the Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions in Philippine Law

n

G.R. No. 91694, March 14, 1997

n

The admissibility of extrajudicial confessions is a critical aspect of Philippine criminal law. This case, People of the Philippines vs. Sabas Calvo, Jr. and Rodolfo Longcop, underscores the stringent requirements that must be met before a confession can be used as evidence against an accused. It highlights the importance of ensuring that confessions are voluntary, made with competent legal counsel, express, and in writing to protect the constitutional rights of the accused.

nn

Introduction

n

Imagine being accused of a crime, pressured by authorities, and unknowingly signing a document that seals your fate. This is the reality for many individuals facing criminal charges in the Philippines. The law recognizes the potential for abuse during custodial investigations and sets strict standards for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions. The Sabas Calvo case serves as a stark reminder of the need to safeguard these rights and ensure that confessions are obtained fairly and voluntarily.

n

In this case, Sabas Calvo, Jr. was convicted of robbery with homicide based primarily on his extrajudicial confession and the testimonies of two witnesses. However, the admissibility of his confession was challenged, raising questions about the competence of his legal counsel and the voluntariness of his statement.

nn

Legal Context: Constitutional Rights and Confessions

n

The Philippine Constitution guarantees several rights to individuals under custodial investigation, primarily found in Article III, Section 12. These rights are designed to protect suspects from self-incrimination and ensure fair treatment during questioning. The key provisions include:

n

n
• The right to remain silent.

n

• The right to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of their own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, they must be provided with one.

n

• The right to be informed of these rights.

n

n

Crucially, any confession obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible as evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that these rights cannot be waived without a clear and intelligent understanding of their consequences. An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must meet the following criteria:

n

n
• Voluntary: The confession must be given freely, without any coercion, threat, or promise of reward.

n

• Made with Competent and Independent Counsel: The accused must have access to a lawyer who is capable of providing effective legal assistance and is not beholden to the police or prosecution.

n

• Express: The confession must be clear and unambiguous.

n

• In Writing: The confession must be documented in written form.

n

n

For instance, if a police officer promises a suspect a lighter sentence in exchange for a confession, that confession would be deemed involuntary and inadmissible. Similarly, if the lawyer provided to the suspect is merely a