The rules on confessions obtained by torture

The rule in our jurisdiction is that confessions obtained through coercion are called fruits of the poisonous tree. The courts cannot legally use them as basis for conviction because they are deemed inadmissible in evidence. They violate the Bill of Rights and contradict the Miranda Doctrine. However, in fairness to police and prosecutors, their works and the results thereof enjoy the presumption of regularity. Those who allege torture have to prove their allegations.

A forced confession is a confession obtained from a suspect or a prisoner by means of torture (including enhanced interrogation techniques) or other forms of duress. Depending on the level of coercion used, a forced confession isn’t valid in revealing the truth. The individuals being interrogated may agree to the story presented to them or even make up falsehoods to satisfy the interrogator and discontinue their suffering. We also add, based on our knowledge as professor of Constitutional Law, and an ardent student of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, that he who alleges a fact bears the burden to prove it. The court has the solemn duty to take confessions with grains of salt. The judge has to examine the one who confessed and look at all the surrounding circumstances.

The Supreme Court, en banc, in the case of Clemente Magtoto vs. Judge Miguel Manguerra, GR L-37201, March 3, 1975, held: "To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege *[384 U.S. 479]* and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."

The purpose of the law is really to protect the rights of the accused under custody. Thus, the High Court continued: "Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warning has been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make statements. But unless and until such warning and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him." (Miranda vs. Arizona, supra, p. 478). The Miranda Doctrine is a safeguard for individual's rights to make sure that those who are being charged of crimes will not be made to testify against themselves through confessions coerced by police.

For centuries, the Latin phrase "Confessio est regina probationum" (Confession is the queen of evidence) justified the use of forced confession in the European legal system. In the Middle Ages acquiring a confession was the most important thing during preparations before a trial. The method used to get the confession seemed irrelevant, de facto sanctioning torture to extract forced confession. By the late 18th century, most scholars and lawyers thought of the forced confession not only as a relic of past times and morally wrong but also ineffective as the victim of torture may confess to anything to ease their suffering. Developments in the 20th century, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, greatly reduced the legal acceptance of forced confessions.

In the Philippines, especially under the 1987 Constitution, confessions obtained through torture of accused persons under detention are inadmissible evidence. Our courts, which largely based their decisions on American jurisprudence, are more protective of the underdog, who is the accused, rather than the government, represented by the police, the DOJ, and the prosecutors. The case of Congressman Teves was largely based on the so-called confessions of assailants who pointed to the congressman as the alleged mastermind. But the DOJ is saying that the case can still stand based on other incriminating evidence. These are all for the court to decide and not for us to speculate. By the way, when cases are not yet filed in court, the rule on "sub judice" doesn’t apply as yet.