Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

01 People vs. Agustin  In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt.

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