Extrajudicial Confessions and Their Impact on Robbery Convictions: A Lesson in Legal Admissibility

Alemar A. Bansilan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 239518, November 03, 2020, 888 Phil. 832

Imagine waking up to find your home burgled, your possessions missing, and the culprit caught through a confession made not to the police, but to a private individual. This scenario played out in a recent Supreme Court case, which has significant implications for how extrajudicial confessions are treated in Philippine law. In the case of Alemar A. Bansilan, the accused confessed to a robbery to the victim himself, leading to a conviction that was upheld despite challenges to the admissibility of this confession. This case raises critical questions about the legal boundaries of confessions made outside formal custodial settings and their role in securing convictions.

The key legal issue in this case revolves around the admissibility of an extrajudicial confession made by the accused to the victim, and whether such a confession can form the basis for a conviction. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the conditions under which such confessions can be considered valid evidence, shedding light on the nuances of Philippine evidence law.

Legal Context: Understanding Extrajudicial Confessions and Hearsay

In the Philippines, the admissibility of confessions is governed by the Revised Rules on Evidence, specifically under Rule 130, Section 26, which states that “the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.” This rule is founded on the principle that individuals are unlikely to make statements against their own interest unless those statements are true.

However, confessions made outside of custodial settings, known as extrajudicial confessions, can be contentious. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights, particularly Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III, mandates that confessions during custodial investigation must be made in the presence of counsel. But what happens when a confession is made to a private individual, as in Bansilan’s case?

The Supreme Court has ruled that spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by authorities are not covered by the constitutional safeguards on custodial investigations. This means that if someone voluntarily admits to a crime to a non-law enforcement individual, that confession can be admissible in court.

The concept of hearsay also plays a crucial role. Hearsay is generally inadmissible because it is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness. However, as illustrated in the case of Bon v. People, testimony about what someone heard a party say is not necessarily hearsay if it is used to prove that the statement was made, rather than the truth of the statement itself.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Alemar A. Bansilan

Alemar A. Bansilan was charged with robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. The incident occurred on May 18, 2012, when Jayme Malayo, the victim, discovered his home had been broken into and his laptop and cash stolen. Malayo later confronted Bansilan, who admitted to the crime and provided details about pawning the laptop.

The trial court found Bansilan guilty based on this confession and corroborating evidence, sentencing him to imprisonment. Bansilan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that his confession to Malayo was inadmissible hearsay and that the testimony about the pawnshop transaction was also hearsay.

The CA upheld the conviction, reasoning that Bansilan’s confession was admissible because it was made voluntarily and not during a custodial investigation. The Supreme Court echoed this sentiment, stating, “The testimonies of Malayo and SPO1 Arado cannot be considered as hearsay… Malayo was indisputably present and has heard Bansilan when the latter made an admission of guilt.”

The Supreme Court further clarified, “Even assuming arguendo that the foregoing testimonies… were hearsay, Bansilan is barred from assailing the admission of the testimonies… for failure to object to these testimonies at the time they were offered.”

Despite allowing Bansilan to withdraw his appeal, the Supreme Court modified his sentence under Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted penalties based on the value of stolen property.

Practical Implications: Navigating Extrajudicial Confessions

This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of extrajudicial confessions in criminal cases. For legal practitioners, it highlights the need to scrutinize the context of confessions made outside formal settings and to ensure timely objections to potentially inadmissible evidence.

For individuals, this case serves as a reminder of the potential legal consequences of spontaneous admissions. It is crucial to be aware of one’s rights and the implications of statements made to non-law enforcement individuals.

Key Lessons:

• Extrajudicial confessions made voluntarily to private individuals can be admissible in court.
• Failure to object to hearsay evidence at the time it is presented can result in its admissibility.
• Legal practitioners must be vigilant about the admissibility of confessions and ensure they are properly documented and challenged when necessary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an extrajudicial confession?
An extrajudicial confession is a statement made by an accused person outside of a formal custodial setting, often to a private individual or non-law enforcement personnel.

Can an extrajudicial confession be used in court?
Yes, if the confession is made voluntarily and not elicited through questioning by authorities, it can be admissible as evidence in court.

What is hearsay evidence?
Hearsay evidence is testimony about what someone else said, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is generally inadmissible unless it falls under specific exceptions.

What should I do if someone confesses a crime to me?
It is advisable to document the confession carefully and report it to the authorities. However, be aware that the confession may still be subject to legal scrutiny regarding its admissibility.

How can I challenge a confession made outside of a custodial setting?
To challenge such a confession, one must demonstrate that it was not made voluntarily or was elicited through improper means. Timely objections during the trial are crucial.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and evidence. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.