Short answer. The Revised Penal Code calls it maltreatment of prisoners. Article 235 punishes a public officer who overdoes himself in handling a prisoner under his charge, and it imposes a heavier penalty when the purpose of the beating is to extort a confession — on top of separate liability for the physical injuries caused.
What the law says
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prisión mayor in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000)
Revised Penal Code, Article 235 — Maltreatment Of Prisoners. Read the full provision →
What Article 235 actually punishes
Article 235 is titled maltreatment of prisoners. It binds public officers and employees — jail personnel, police officers, and anyone else who has a prisoner in custody. Two things trigger it: imposing punishments that the regulations do not authorise, or imposing punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner. The detainee need not have been convicted of anything. The text expressly covers a detention prisoner, meaning a person still awaiting or undergoing trial, which is exactly the situation of someone beaten during questioning. Liability under this article is stated to be in addition to the officer's liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, so the injuries are not absorbed into it.
Beating to extract a confession is the graver form
Where the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession or to obtain information, the article imposes prisión mayor in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification, and a fine. The peso figure in the current text — a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos — comes from Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions of the Code still print the 1930 amounts, so check which version any source you rely on is giving you. The disqualification matters as much as the imprisonment, because it removes the officer from the post that made the abuse possible.
What this article does not reach
Article 235 reaches only an officer who has the prisoner under his charge. A private person who assaults a detainee, or an officer with no custodial role at all, is answerable under the ordinary provisions on physical injuries or coercion instead. The article also does not, by itself, decide what happens to the confession. Whether a statement taken by force can be used is governed by the constitutional protections during custodial investigation and is fought out in the detainee's own criminal case, not in the complaint against the officer. Rough handling that stays within authorised discipline is likewise outside the article; the text targets punishments that are unauthorised, cruel or humiliating.
Practical steps while the evidence still exists
Injuries fade, so an independent medical examination as early as possible is usually the single most useful step. So are the names of everyone present, the dates and times, and any custody or logbook entries. Matters of this kind commonly proceed on two tracks at once — a criminal complaint against the officer and an administrative complaint before the body that disciplines his service — and neither waits for the other. Records held only by the detaining facility can become unavailable with time. If a relative is still in custody, it is far better to take advice while the detention is ongoing than after release.