Right Against Torture and Degrading Punishment
The right against torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment is guaranteed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically in Article III, Section 12(2), which provides:
​
“No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.”
​
This right is further reinforced by Republic Act No. 9745, or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, which criminalizes all forms of torture and imposes penalties on those who violate the law.
1. Prohibition Against Torture
People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 194670, November 14, 2012
Facts: A man accused of robbery claimed that his confession was obtained under duress and torture while he was detained. He argued that his rights were violated when authorities forced him to sign a confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that any confession obtained through torture, force, or intimidation is inadmissible in court. The Court emphasized the need to protect individuals from torture and any form of coercion, reiterating that confessions must be made freely and voluntarily.
People of the Philippines v. Salvador, G.R. No. 220732, March 15, 2017
Facts: In this case, an accused claimed that he was subjected to physical torture to extract a confession for his involvement in drug trafficking.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the confession, reiterating the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be subjected to torture or any form of degrading punishment. The Court further emphasized that under the Anti-Torture Act, authorities are liable for such acts, ensuring accountability within the criminal justice system.
2. Protection Against Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Punishment
Leading Case: People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-29761, September 30, 1974
Facts: The case involved an appeal for the reduction of a death sentence imposed on the accused. The accused claimed that the death penalty amounted to cruel and inhuman punishment under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: While the death penalty was constitutional at the time of this case, the Court upheld that any punishment must conform to the principle of human dignity and the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The death penalty was later abolished in the Philippines in 2006.
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 229049, June 28, 2021
Facts: Reyes was convicted of multiple counts of rape and received a sentence of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). He argued that the imposition of such a sentence for a non-violent crime violated the prohibition against cruel punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court maintained that life imprisonment, when imposed lawfully and proportionally to the crime, does not constitute cruel or inhuman punishment. The Court reaffirmed that the law protects individuals from punishments that are “grossly disproportionate to the offense.”
3. Prohibition on Secret Detention and Incommunicado Detention
Ilagan v. Enrile, G.R. No. 70748, October 21, 1985
Facts: This landmark case occurred during the Martial Law period when many individuals were arrested without charges and held in secret detention centers without access to their families or legal counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court declared that secret detention places and incommunicado detention violate constitutional rights and international human rights norms. The Court emphasized that persons deprived of liberty must have access to counsel and family, and must not be held in undisclosed locations.
People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 232689, January 23, 2019
Facts: The case involved a suspect arrested during a police raid, who was detained in an undisclosed location for several days before being presented in court. He alleged violations of his rights, including secret detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that the act of holding a suspect in secret detention is a violation of constitutional rights and the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745). The police officers involved were found guilty of violating the prohibition against secret detention, and the confession obtained from the suspect was deemed inadmissible.
4. Legal Recourse and Accountability Under the Anti-Torture Act
The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745) provides victims of torture legal recourse, enabling them to file criminal cases against their perpetrators. It imposes significant penalties for acts of torture and requires immediate investigation of alleged cases.
People v. Morial, G.R. No. 213104, September 21, 2016
Facts: The accused was convicted of torturing a detainee to obtain information about his involvement in a robbery. The victim suffered severe injuries during detention and filed charges under the Anti-Torture Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding the police officers liable for torture under Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745). The Court highlighted the state’s duty to ensure that detainees are treated humanely, with no recourse to torture or other forms of degrading punishment.
People v. Santos, G.R. No. 240330, October 12, 2020
Facts: Santos, a police officer, was charged with torturing a suspect during an interrogation related to drug charges. The case was filed under the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745), with the victim providing evidence of physical and psychological abuse.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the police officer under the Anti-Torture Act. The Court reinforced that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable, meaning no circumstance can justify acts of torture.
These cases and legal provisions highlight the Philippines’ commitment to upholding the right against torture and degrading punishment, emphasizing the protection of human dignity and the accountability of public officials.