Duterte's testimonies under oath: admissions or confessions?

The whole nation heard and saw the many admissions made by former president Rodrigo Duterte under oath before the Senate's sub-committee last October 28, 2024. Duterte's usual bravado and macho audacious admissions were monitored by the International Criminal Court directly from Europe and the human rights advocates all over the world. Are such admissions against interest admissible in court and are they sufficient to convict?

Many members of the Lower House who heard his testimonies declared that there are enough grounds to charge Duterte of multiple heinous crimes. But can such statements made by the former president be properly used in the court of law and the International Criminal Court? The former president cannot invoke the famous US decision in the case of Miranda vs. State of Arizona. He is a lawyer, and he was properly and sufficiently assisted by his counsel, Atty. Salvador Panelo, and his former executive secretary, Atty. Salvador Medialdea, lawyer-son of the great justice of the Supreme Court, Leo Medialdea.

Many times, during the Senate investigations, the former president made multiple admissions against interest in his policy in relation to the war on drugs, of "killing" alleged criminals. In the US landmark case, Miranda was not under oath when he made extrajudicial confessions. President Duterte made admissions against interest under oath before the senators with full assistance of a battery of lawyers. But Miranda made a confession, Duterte only made an admission. What is the difference between an admission and a confession? In the 1914 decision by the Philippine Supreme Court, in the en banc case of US vs. Jose Corrales, GR L-9230 promulgated on November 10, 1914.

The highest court of the land held: "But a distinction must be made between confessions and admissions. A confession, as distinguished from an admission, is a declaration made at any time by a person voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged."

The Supreme Court stressed: "The statutory provision excluding evidence as to confessions until and unless the prescribed foundation is laid is not applicable to admissions, which do not amount to confessions although they may be sufficient when taken together with other evidence of surrounding circumstances to sustain an inference of the guilt of the accused. The reason for the rule excluding evidence as to confessions unless it is first made to appear that they are made voluntarily does not apply in cases of admissions, although, of course, evidence of the fact that a particular statement was made by the accused to the auditor, that it was made under duress, and we are of opinion that the trial judge properly took it under consideration as evidence against the accused."

The Supreme Court held however, "There is no provision of law which prescribes that either confessions or admissions are not competent evidence unless made under oath. It is the fact that they are made by the accused and against his own interest which gives them their evidentiary value, and provided the fact is established, it does not matter whether they are made under oath or not." Former president Duterte, aside from being a graduate of San Beda College of Law, used to be a trial lawyer, a prosecutor, a mayor, and a president. He is not like the ignorant Mr. Miranda who was tortured to make a confession by the policemen in Arizona, USA.

And Duterte was pinned down by Senators Riza Hontiveros and Koko Pimentel a number of times, broadcast and telecast all over the world. The futile and vain efforts of his underlings did not help at all. Such acts of clutching at straws showed enough reasons that these members of the Senate are not for the people but for their master, the king of Davao.

I agree with the members of the House that there is sufficient basis to charge the former president both in Philippine courts and the ICC. Let the court of law hear all the evidence and let justice prevail though heavens may fall.