{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Tecson v comelec grno161434mar32004

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: ional provision of his right against self‐ incrimination. Is X’s contention valid? A: X’s contention is tenable. Under Article HI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Since the provision prohibits compulsory testimonial incrimination, it does not matter whether the testimony is taken by oral or written. Writing is not purely a mechanical act because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. The purpose of the privilege is to avoid and prohibit thereby the repetition and recurrence of compelling a person, in a criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. (Bermudez v. Castillo, July 26, 1937; Beltran v. Samson, G.R. No. 32025, September 23, 1929) Note: There is similarity between one who is compelled to produce a private document (Boyd vs. US, 1886), and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. 2. Immunity Statutes Q: Distinguish Derivative‐Use Immunity from Transactional Immunity. A: Derivative‐Use Immunity Whatever is elicited from the witness, as well as any other evidence which the investigators were led to because of the testimony given, would not be admissible in evidence against the witness Transactional Immunity Witness is immunized from prosecution in relation to the crime in which he was compelled to provide testimony Q: Republic of the Philippines filed a case against Westinghouse Corporation before the US District Court due to the belief that Westinghouse contract for the construction of the Bataan Nuclear power plant, which was brokered by Herminio’s Disini’s company, had been attended by anomalies. Having worked as Herminio’s executive in the latter’s company for 15 years, the Republic asked Jesus Disini to give his testimony regarding the case. POLITICAL LAW TEAM: ADVISER: ATTY. EDWIN REY SANDOVAL; SUBJECT HEAD: RACHEL MARIE L. FELICES; ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: WIVINO E. BRACERO II & HERAZEUS CHRISTINE Y. UY; MEMBERS: LAWRENCE PAULO H. AQUINO, LEAND...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}