12. Villaflor v Summers.pdf - [No 16444 September 8 1920...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 10 pages.

12.3.[No. 16444. September 8, 1920.]EMETERIAVILLAFLOR, petitioner, vs.RICARDOSUMMERS, sheriffoftheCityofManila, respondent.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PHILIPPINE BILL OF RIGHTS;RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSON; GENERALPRINCIPLES.·The object of having criminal laws is topurge the community of persons who violate the laws to thegreat prejudice of their fellow men. Criminal procedure, therule of evidence, and constitutional provisions63VOL. 41, SEPTEMBER 8, 192063Villaflor vs, Summers.are then provided, not to protect the guilty but to protectthe innocent. No rule is intended to be so rigid as toembarrass the administration of justice in its endeavor toascertain the truth.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.·With a losse extension of constitutionalguaranties because of a misconceived notion of the rights ofaccused persons, this court is not in accord.ID.; ID.; ID.; SELF-INCRIMINATION; HISTORY OF THEGUARANTY.· The maxim of the common law, Nemotenetur seipsum accusare,was recognized in England inearly days in a revolt against the thumbscrew and the rack.A legal shield was raised against odious inquisitorialmethods of interrogating an accused person by which toextort unwilling confessions with the ever presenttemptation to commit the crime of perjury. The principlewas taken into the American Constitutions, and from theUnited States was brought to the Philippine Islands, inexactly as wide·but no wider·a scope as it existed in old
4.5.6.7.8.9.English days.ID.; ID. ; ID. ; ID.; POLICY OF THE LAW.·Even superiorto the complete immunity of a person to be let alone is theinterest which the public has in the orderly administrationof justice. Between a sacrifice of the ascertainment of truthto personal considerations, between a disregard of thepublic welfare for refined notions of delicacy, law and justicecannot hesitate.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; RULES.·The constitutional guaranty,that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to bea witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition againstcompulsory testimonial self-incrimination.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID.·Torture or f orce shall be avoided.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; BODILY EXHIBITION.·On a propershowing and under an order of the trial court, an ocularinspection of the body of the accused is permissible.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.·Upon petition of the assistant fiscalfor the city of Manila, the trial court ordered the defendant,a woman charged with the crime of adultery, to submit herbody to the examination of one or two competent doctors todetermine whether she was pregnant or not. Held:Thatwhile this order of the trial court is phrased in absoluteterms, it should, nevertheless, be understood as subject tothe limitations herein mentioned, and thus as not inviolation of that portion of the Philippine Bill of Rights andthat portion of the Philippine Code of Criminal Procedurewhich find their origin in the Constitution of the UnitedStates and practically all State Constitutions, and in thecommon law rules of evidence, relating to self-incrimination.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture