Our own laws for instance provide that an alien woman

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: he information from the testimonies of X and Y to support the prosecution's case against them in Sandiganbayan. The Board contends that the fact that X and Y testified before the Board constituted as a valid waiver of their constitutional rights to remain silent and not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves. 1. Was there a valid waiver of the rights? 2. Are the testimonies of X and Y admissible in court? 3. How can the unconstitutional effects be reconciled? A: 1. None. In the case at bar, X and Y were under the directive of law and under the compulsion of fear for the contempt powers of the Board. They were left with no choice but to provide testimonies before the Board. 2. No. The manner in which testimonies were taken from X and Y falls short of the constitutional standards both under the due process clause and under the exclusionary rule. 3. As a rule, such infringement of constitutional right renders inoperative the testimonial compulsion, meaning, the witness cannot be compelled to answer UNLESS a co‐extensive protection in the form of IMMUNITY is offered. The only was to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it in the manner as if IMMUNITY had in fact been offered. The applicability of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886 cannot be made to depend on a claim of the privilege against self‐incrimination which the same law practically strips away from the witness. (Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, 1985) Note: Sec. 5, P.D. 1886, grants merely immunity from use of any statement given before the Agrava Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208‐09, Aug. 30, 1985) Q: What is the effect of denial of privilege against self‐incrimination? A: When the privilege against self‐incrimination is violated outside of court, say, by the police, then the testimony, as already noted, is not admissible under the exclusionary rule. When the privilege is violated by the court its...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online