Finally, due process considerations require that theopposing party should, as a general rule, know hisadversary. “A party suing or sued is entitled to know whohis opponent is.” He cannot be obliged to grope in thedarkagainstunknownforces.Regalav.Sandiganbayan – 262 SCRA 122Malimit robbed and stabbed Malaki in his store.There were two witnesses, Batin and Rondon.The appellant questions the credibility ofprosecution witnesses Florencio Rondon andEdilberto Batin by pointing out their allegeddelay in revealing what they knew about theincident. He posits that while the crime tookplace on April 15, 1991, it was only onSeptember 17, 1991 when these witnessestagged him as the culprit. Appellant haphazardlyconcluded that Rondon and Batin implicated theappellant to this gruesome crime only onSeptember 17, 1991. The appellant alsoasseverates that the admission as evidence ofMalaki’s wallet together with its contents, viz., (1)Malaki’s residence certificate;22 (2) hisidentification card;23 and (3) bunch of keys,violates his right against self-incrimination.Likewise, appellant sought for their exclusionbecause during the custodial investigation,wherein he pointed to the investigatingpolicemen the place where he hid Malaki’swallet, he was not informed of his constitutionalrights. Whether or not the trial court erred inadmitting as evidence the wallet and itscontents although the circumstances whichled to its production was obtained inviolation of the constitutional rights of theaccusedAnswer: No. The right against self-incriminationguaranteed under our fundamental law finds noapplication in this case. This right, as put by Mr. JusticeHolmes in Holt vs. United States,26 “x x x is a prohibitionof the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extortcommunications from him x x x.” It is simply a prohibitionagainst legal process to extract from the [accused]’s ownlips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does notapply to the instant case where the evidence sought tobe excluded is not an incriminating statement but objectevidence. People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167Former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. wasgunned down to death inside the premises of theManila International Airport (MIA) in Pasay City.To determine the facts and circumstancessurrounding the killing and to allow a free,unlimited and exhaustive investigation of allaspects of the tragedy, PD 1886 waspromulgated creating an ad hoc Fact FindingBoard which later became more popularlyknown as the Agrava Board. Pursuant to thepowers vested in it by PD 1886, the Boardconducted public hearings wherein variouswitnesses appeared and testified and/orproduced documentary and other evidenceeither in obedience to a subpoena or inresponse to an invitation issued by the Board.
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