Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He was detained incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to water torture. He later allegedly confessed his guilt via an affidavit.
After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his confession was obtained through torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence.
In a subsequent criminal case for torture against those who deprived him of sleep and subjected him to water torture, Dominique was asked to testify and to, among other things, identify his above-said affidavit of confession. As he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection be sustained? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the defense counsel's objection cannot be sustained. Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act) and constitutional rules on evidence, confessions obtained through torture are inadmissible against the confessant, except when
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9745, when is a confession obtained through torture admissible in evidence?
Confessions obtained through torture are admissible solely when offered as evidence against persons accused of committing torture.
What is the primary legal purpose of the constitutional exclusionary rule regarding involuntary confessions?
The exclusionary rule protects victims of constitutional violations by excluding coerced evidence offered against them.
Can state officers accused of torture invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to exclude a coerced confession?
Torturers cannot invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to suppress evidence of their own tortious conduct.
What is the legal status of an affidavit of confession obtained through water torture when offered against the confessant?
Choices available with full access.
In a criminal prosecution for torture under R.A. 9745, what function does the victim's coerced affidavit serve?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Anti-Torture Act Exception
Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9745, otherwise known as the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, any confession, admission, or statement obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. However, the law provides an explicit statutory exception: such involuntary statements are fully admissible as evidence when offered against a person accused of committing torture. This exception ensures that perpetrators cannot use exclusionary rules to hide evidence of their own unlawful acts.
2. Exclusionary Rule Purpose
The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine were established under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to protect citizens against state overreach and constitutional violations. These doctrines operate as a shield to safeguard victims of illegal searches, seizures, or coerced confessions from wrongful conviction. They do not operate as a sword or protective shield for state actors who commit torture. Consequently, torturers cannot invoke the exclusionary rule to suppress involuntary confessions when prosecuted for their criminal acts.
3. Involuntary Confession Admissibility
An involuntary confession obtained through physical or mental torture is constitutionally void and inadmissible to establish the criminal liability of the confessant. However, when the legal proceeding shifts from the prosecution of the victim to the criminal prosecution of the torturers, the coerced confession becomes corpus delicti evidence proving the commission of torture. Introducing the affidavit in a torture prosecution serves to identify the specific product of the illegal act, establishing the factual basis of the statutory offense.