This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntarily and freely made, constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. The admissibihty and validity of a confession, thus hinges on its voluntariness,[58] a condition vividly present in this case. | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details-which could only be supplied by the accused-reflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may be considered voluntary.[59] The trial court applied this rule but without basis. On closer examination of the evidence, the key details in the alleged confession were provided not by appellant but by the police officers themselves. | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Courts are slow to accept extrajudicial confessions when they are subsequently disputed unless they are corroborated.[68] There must be such corroboration so that when considered in connection with the confession, it will show the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.[69] | |||||