out-of-court-identification; totality of circumstances test; extrajudicial confession; custodial investigation

People v. Algarme¹⁷ explains the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to determine its admissibility, as follows:

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x

 In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz.: 

(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 

(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; 

(3) the accuracy of any prior description, given by the witness;

 (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;

(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, 

(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

x x x

The Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy the following requirements: "

(1) the confession must be voluntary; 

(2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice; 

(3) it must be express; and

 (4) it must be in writing."¹⁹

xxx

"A custodial investigation is understood x x x as x x x any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. x x x It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.²⁰

xxx

At any rate, Nabilgas’ extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule. This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them.

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This provision states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy, and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.²³