This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| When an accused appeals from the judgment of his conviction, he waives his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy and throws the entire case open for appellate review. We are then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate in the exercise of our concomitant authority to review and sift through the whole case to correct any error, even if unassigned.[13] | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| And as the Solicitor General correctly noted, the trial court modified the penalty in its Decision dated November 15, 1999 before the petitioner could perfect his appeal from the first Decision dated November 4, 1999 which was promulgated on November 10, 1999. Noteworthy is that it was the RTC's second Decision dated November 15, 1999 which the petitioner elevated on appeal to the CA. It is well settled that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy, and, as discussed above, throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called to render judgment as the law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable, and whether they are made the subject of assigned errors or not. This precept should be borne in mind by every lawyer of an accused who unwittingly takes the risk involved when he decides to appeal his sentence.[24] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We ruled in People v. Rondero[38] that although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress. | |||||