I. Introduction

In Philippine criminal litigation, one of the most common and most litigated factual issues is whether an accused actually admitted the crime — and if so, whether that admission may be used in evidence.

A classic scenario: After the crime, the accused privately tells a mayor, a barangay captain, a neighbor, a friend, or even a relative: “Ako ang pumatay.” That person later takes the witness stand and narrates the confession.

Is this hearsay? Is it covered by custodial investigation rights? Can it be admitted under res gestae? Is it enough to convict?

This article walks through the doctrinal framework under Philippine law, focusing on:

The nature of confessions and admissions;
The hearsay rule and why a confession to a third person is usually not hearsay;
The role of res gestae (excited utterances and verbal acts);
The constitutional overlay on confessions; and
Practical nuances (co-accused, multiple hearsay, electronic communications, privileges, and weight vs admissibility).

II. Confession vs Admission in Philippine Law

A. Definitions

Traditional distinctions (still used in Philippine jurisprudence):

Admission – A voluntary declaration of a fact or circumstance not necessarily conclusive of guilt but tending to establish it.
Confession – A declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of an offense necessarily included therein.

All confessions are admissions, but not all admissions are confessions. For evidentiary analysis, both are governed by the rule on admissions of a party in the Rules on Evidence.

B. Judicial vs Extrajudicial Confession

Judicial confession – Made in court (e.g., plea of guilty, testimony on the stand).
Extrajudicial confession – Made out of court, to anyone (police, prosecutor, or a private individual).

A confession told to a third person (e.g., friend, mayor, neighbor) is typically:

Extrajudicial, and
Made to a private individual, not in the course of a formal custodial interrogation.

This characterization matters because:

Judicial confessions generally have strong evidentiary value but must comply with procedural rules to be valid (e.g., searching inquiry upon plea of guilty in capital cases).
Extrajudicial confessions are admissible subject to constitutional safeguards (if made to law enforcers) and evidentiary rules (admissions, hearsay, corpus delicti rule, etc.).

III. The Hearsay Rule and Party Admissions

A. Hearsay Defined

Under the Rules on Evidence, hearsay is:

An out-of-court statement
Offered in evidence
To prove the truth of the fact asserted
Where the declarant does not testify or cannot be cross-examined on that statement.

As a rule, hearsay is inadmissible because the adverse party is deprived of the chance to test the perception, memory, narration, and sincerity of the declarant through cross-examination.

B. Admissions of a Party Are Not Hearsay

Philippine rules treat admissions by a party (including the accused in a criminal case) as independently relevant and generally outside the hearsay rule. The logic:

A party is bound by his own statements.
The adversarial system considers it fair to use a person’s own words against them, even if made outside court.
The need for cross-examination is considered less compelling because the party can always take the stand to explain or deny the statement.

Thus, when the prosecution offers a confession made by the accused himself, the issue is generally not whether it is hearsay but whether:

It is properly proven (i.e., the witness heard it personally and is credible);
It is voluntary (no force, threat, intimidation, or improper inducement); and
It is relevant to the fact in issue.

C. Third-Person Testimony on the Accused’s Confession

Typical pattern:

A witness testifies: “The accused told me, ‘Ako ang bumaril sa kanya.’”

Is that hearsay?

No, with respect to the accused.
- It is a direct testimony by the witness about a statement he personally heard.
- The statement is an admission of a party (the accused).
- Under the Rules on Evidence, admissions of a party are treated as not hearsay.

Conditions:

The witness must have personal knowledge of the statement (he actually heard it).
The statement must be identified as coming from the accused.
The testimony must be accurate and credible.
No privilege applies (e.g., lawyer–client, priest–penitent).

IV. Constitutional Overlay: Custodial Investigation vs Private Confessions

A. Constitutional Protection (Art. III, Sec. 12)

The Philippine Constitution provides:

Any person under custodial investigation has the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in evidence.

Custodial investigation generally means:

Questioning by law enforcement officers or their agents
After a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of movement
In connection with an offense.

B. Confession to a Private Individual (e.g., Mayor, Neighbor, Friend)

A confession to a private person (not acting as a law enforcement agent) is:

Not considered custodial investigation.
Hence, Miranda-type warnings are not required.
The statement is admissible provided it is voluntary and complies with ordinary evidentiary rules.

Philippine jurisprudence has repeatedly upheld confessions made to barangay captains, mayors, relatives, or neighbors, where:

The declarant approached them voluntarily;
They were not acting as police interrogators; and
There was no coercion, promise, or threat.

One leading example is the case where the accused confessed to a municipal mayor that he raped and killed the victim: the Court ruled that such confession was admissible because the mayor was not a law enforcement officer and the confession was voluntarily made.

C. When a “Private Individual” Is Effectively a State Agent

However, if the “third person” is:

Acting under the direction or control of the police, or
Used as an instrument to interrogate the suspect,

then the situation may be treated as a custodial interrogation by proxy, triggering constitutional safeguards. In that case, failure to comply with the constitutional requirements may render the confession inadmissible, even if technically made to a private individual.

V. Res Gestae: Excited Utterances and Verbal Acts

A. Concept of Res Gestae

Historically, res gestae covered several categories of spontaneous or contemporaneous statements so closely connected with the occurrence that they are considered reliable, despite being hearsay:

Spontaneous statements (excited utterances) – Statements relating to a startling occurrence, made under the stress of excitement and before there is time to contrive or misrepresent.
Verbal acts (part of the transaction) – Statements that accompany equivocal conduct and help give it legal significance.

These are codified in the Rules on Evidence as hearsay exceptions.

B. Requirements for Excited Utterances (Spontaneous Statements)

Philippine jurisprudence (paralleling common law) typically requires:

Startling occurrence (e.g., shooting, stabbing, accident).
Statement made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise a falsehood, i.e., under the stress of excitement.
Statement relates to the occurrence or the circumstances thereof.

If a person — including the accused — blurts out an incriminating statement under such conditions, the statement may be:

Admissible as an excited utterance (res gestae) even if the declarant is not a party (e.g., victim, bystander); and
In the case of the accused, it is also an admission of a party.

C. Verbal Acts (Statements That Explain Ambiguous Conduct)

“Verbal acts” are statements that accompany and explain equivocal conduct, e.g.:

When handing over money, one says, “This is payment for the drugs you sold me.”
When entering land, one says, “This lot is mine.”

These are admissible not primarily for the truth of the statement, but as part of the very transaction giving the conduct its legal character.

In the context of confessions:

Verbal-act res gestae rarely plays a central role, but can be relevant when the statement is part of the very act constituting the crime (e.g., “Hold-up ito!” shouted during a robbery).

VI. Confession to a Third Person as Res Gestae

A. When a Confession Is Also an Excited Utterance

A confession to a third person may fall under both:

Admission of a party, and
Res gestae (excited utterance)

if:

It is made immediately or shortly after the startling event;
The declarant is still under the stress of the event; and
The statement concerns the event itself (“Ako ang bumaril sa kanya kanina!”) rather than a calm, reflective narration hours or days later.

Even if the witness is recounting an out-of-court statement of someone other than a party, it may be admissible as an excited utterance. But when it is the accused speaking, the party-admission doctrine already suffices; res gestae simply adds another basis of admissibility.

B. Why Prosecutors Sometimes Invoke Res Gestae On Top Of Party Admission

Prosecutors may plead both bases because:

Strategic redundancy – If the court doubts that the accused is a “party” for some technical reason (e.g., statement made before formal filing, or question of identity), res gestae may still salvage admissibility.
Evidentiary narrative – Emphasizing that the statement was spontaneous under stress enhances its perceived reliability, which affects weight, even if not strictly needed for admissibility.

In leading cases, the Court has described such private confessions as “part of the res gestae” to underscore the lack of coercion and spontaneity of the admission.

VII. Special Problems and Nuances

A. Confession Implicating Co-Accused

What if the accused tells a third person:

“Ako ang bumaril — kasama ko si X, siya ang nagmaneho.”

As against the declarant (A):

It is clearly his own admission/confession – admissible.

As against co-accused X:

The statement is generally inadmissible under the doctrines of res inter alios acta and the hearsay rule.
X is not the one speaking; A’s accusation against X cannot bind X, who had no opportunity to cross-examine A at the time of the statement.

Exceptions may arise where:

There is conspiracy duly proven and the statement is made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy — then it may be an admission of a co-conspirator.
The statement fits another hearsay exception (e.g., dying declaration implicating co-accused).

But in ordinary situations, a confession of A incriminating X is admissible only against A, not against X, unless it falls under a recognized exception and fairness is satisfied.

B. Multiple Hearsay (Double or Triple Layers)

Example:

A (accused) confesses to B.
B narrates the confession to C.
At trial, C testifies: “B told me that A told him, ‘Ako ang pumatay.’”

Here:

A → B: admission of a party (valid layer).
B → C: hearsay.

C’s testimony is double hearsay and generally inadmissible, because:

C did not personally hear A’s confession;
The prosecution cannot cross-examine B through C.

To properly prove the confession, B must testify.

C. Corpus Delicti Rule

Under the Rules on Evidence, an extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient to warrant conviction; there must be independent evidence of the corpus delicti, i.e.:

That a specific offense has actually been committed; and
Someone is criminally responsible.

Thus, even if a confession to a third person is admissible, the court must still look for:

Independent proof that the crime occurred (e.g., autopsy findings, missing property, physical evidence).
The confession is used mainly to connect the accused to the crime, rather than to prove that a crime took place in the first place.

D. Privileged Communications

Even if a confession is otherwise admissible under admissions/res gestae rules, it may still be excluded if covered by privilege. Examples:

Lawyer–client privilege
- Confession made to one’s lawyer in the course of professional employment is privileged.
- The lawyer cannot testify against the client without consent.
Priest–penitent / minister–penitent privilege
- Confessions made to a priest or minister in confidence, in their professional capacity as spiritual adviser, are usually privileged.
Marital privilege
- Spouses cannot generally be compelled to testify against each other.
- Certain communications between spouses are privileged.

In such cases, the third person cannot disclose the confession even if it would normally qualify as a party admission or res gestae.

E. Confessions in Civil Cases

While the discussion often focuses on criminal law, the doctrines apply similarly in civil cases:

A party who tells a third person, “I forged the signature,” or “I never paid that loan,” and the third person testifies to this in court, is making an admission of a party.
Res gestae may apply if the statement is part of a startling occurrence or verbal act relevant to the civil dispute.

F. Electronic Communications as Confession to a “Third Person”

In modern practice:

Accused confesses via text message, chat, email, or social media DM to a friend.
The friend testifies, and the messages are offered in evidence.

Key steps:

Authentication – Proving that the communication came from the accused (e.g., phone number ownership, prior messages, SIM card, device seized from accused, etc.).
Admissibility – The messages are statements of a party, hence not hearsay as to that party.
Res gestae – May additionally apply if the messages are sent immediately after a startling event under clear stress (e.g., “Kakapatay ko lang kay Y, natataranta ako!”).

The foundational requirements are the same; only the mode of communication has changed.

VIII. Weight vs Admissibility

Even when a confession told to a third person is admissible, courts still examine its credibility and weight:

Voluntariness – Was it given freely, without force, intimidation, or promise of reward?
Circumstances of disclosure – Was it spontaneous, or in response to probing questions? Was the accused drunk, mentally unstable, or under severe emotional strain?
Witness credibility – Does the third person have any motive to fabricate or exaggerate? Are there inconsistencies?
Consistency with other evidence – Does physical or circumstantial evidence corroborate the confession? Or does the confession contradict objective facts (e.g., time, place, manner of killing)?
Retraction – Later retractions are generally viewed with suspicion but can affect weight if the original confession is doubtful.

Courts routinely uphold convictions where:

An accused spontaneously confessed to a third person (e.g., barangay captain, mayor, friend),
The confession was corroborated by physical and circumstantial evidence, and
There were no strong indications of fabrication or coercion.

IX. Bar and Practice Pointers

For Students and Bar Examinees

Label the statement correctly
- To a third person = extrajudicial confession/admission.
- Accused is a party = admission by a party, not hearsay.
Check constitutional dimension
- Was the recipient a law enforcement officer or agent?
- Was the statement made during custodial investigation?
- Were rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 observed?
Test for res gestae (excited utterance)
- Was there a startling occurrence?
- Statement made under stress and without time to concoct?
- Statement relates to the occurrence?
Consider against whom it’s offered
- Against the declarant? Usually admissible.
- Against co-accused? Likely inadmissible absent exceptions (conspiracy, other hearsay exceptions).
Remember corpus delicti
- An extrajudicial confession alone never suffices; always mention the need for independent proof of corpus delicti.

For Practitioners

For the prosecution:
- Establish voluntariness and credibility through detailed examination of the third-person witness.
- Show that the confession is consistent with physical evidence (wounds, weapon, location, autopsy).
- If applicable, argue that the confession is also res gestae (excited utterance) to emphasize spontaneity.
For the defense:
- Attack voluntariness (coercion, inducement, fear).
- Highlight bias or motives of the third-person witness.
- Question the exact words used; small differences can affect whether it’s truly an admission of guilt or just an ambiguous remark.
- Argue res inter alios acta and hearsay as to co-accused.

X. Synthesis

In Philippine evidence law, a confession told to a third person occupies a rich intersection of doctrines:

It is not hearsay when offered against the accused, because it is an admission by a party.
It may additionally qualify as res gestae (particularly as an excited utterance), enhancing its reliability and providing an alternate ground for admissibility.
Constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation apply only when the confession is extracted by or through law enforcement agents; a genuinely private confession to a neighbor, friend, or local official is generally outside that scope, though it must still be voluntary.
It must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, and its weight depends on the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witness.

Understanding these layers — party admission, hearsay exceptions, constitutional limitations, and corpus delicti — is essential to handling, challenging, or defending the admissibility of confessions told to third persons in Philippine courts.