ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witnessstand and claim the privilege as each question requiringan incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused mayaltogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse toanswer any and all questions. **Standard Chartered v.Senate – 541 SCRA 546Petitioner Jaime. dela Cruz was charged withviolation of Section 15, Article II of Republic ActNo. (R.A.) 9165, or The ComprehensiveDangerous Drugs Act of 2002. After having beenarrested by agents of the National Bureau ofInvestigation (NBI) in an entrapment operation,wasfoundpositiveforuseofMETHAMPHETAMINEHYDROCHLORIDEcommonly known as "Shabu", the dangerousdrug after a confirmatory test conducted on saidaccused. However, the defense presentedpetitioner as the lone witness. He denied thecharges and testified that while eating at thesaid fastfood (Jollibee) branch, he was arrestedallegedly for extortion by NBI agents. When hewas at the NBI Office, he was required to extracturine for drug examination, but he refusedsaying he wanted it to be done by the PhilippineNational Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and notby the NBI. His request was, however, denied.He also requested to be allowed to call hislawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, tono avail. Whether the drug test was aviolation of petitioner’s right against self-incriminationAnswer: Yes. The drug test was a violation ofpetitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that petitioner refusedto have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He alsoasked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He wasadamant in exercising his rights, but all of his effortsproved futile, because he was still compelled to submithis urine for drug testing under those circumstances.Dela Cruz v. People of the Phil. GR No. 200748, July23 2014
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
criminal law, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Trial court, Tan Teng