This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-01-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The suggestion that the right against compulsory self-incrimination may be invoked only in criminal proceedings is valid to a certain extent, but not enough justification to compel Mrs. Marcos to testify against her volition, given the penal characteristics of Civil Case No. 0002. This is because Rule 115, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court accords the accused at a trial the right "to be exempt from being compelled to be witness against himself ". The kernel of this privilege is testimonial compulsion, or simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from a person's own lips an admission of guilt against his will. [67] As this Court has further explained in People vs. Ayson [68] - | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, we have expressly excluded several kinds of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of self-incrimination. These include photographs,[28] hair,[29] and other bodily substances.[30] We have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery,[31] expulsion of morphine from one's mouth[32] and the tracing of one's foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints.[33] In Jimenez v. Cañizares,[34] we even authorized the examination of a woman's genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, per our ruling in Yatar,[35] are now similarly acceptable. | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination[26] proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required.[27] The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.[28] Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy;[29] and an accused may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;[30] to expel morphine from his mouth;[31] to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints;[32] and to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.[33] | |||||