Finally due process considerations require that the opposing party should as a

Finally due process considerations require that the

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 8 pages.

Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. “A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent is.” He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces. Regala v. Sandiganbayan – 262 SCRA 122 Malimit robbed and stabbed Malaki in his store. There were two witnesses, Batin and Rondon. The appellant questions the credibility of prosecution witnesses Florencio Rondon and Edilberto Batin by pointing out their alleged delay in revealing what they knew about the incident. He posits that while the crime took place on April 15, 1991, it was only on September 17, 1991 when these witnesses tagged him as the culprit. Appellant haphazardly concluded that Rondon and Batin implicated the appellant to this gruesome crime only on September 17, 1991. The appellant also asseverates that the admission as evidence of Malaki’s wallet together with its contents, viz., (1) Malaki’s residence certificate;22 (2) his identification card;23 and (3) bunch of keys, violates his right against self-incrimination. Likewise, appellant sought for their exclusion because during the custodial investigation, wherein he pointed to the investigating policemen the place where he hid Malaki’s wallet, he was not informed of his constitutional rights. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the wallet and its contents although the circumstances which led to its production was obtained in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused Answer : No. The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application in this case. This right, as put by Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United States,26 “x x x is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him x x x.” It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]’s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but object evidence. People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167 Former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was gunned down to death inside the premises of the Manila International Airport (MIA) in Pasay City. To determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and to allow a free, unlimited and exhaustive investigation of all aspects of the tragedy, PD 1886 was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board which later became more popularly known as the Agrava Board. Pursuant to the powers vested in it by PD 1886, the Board conducted public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified and/or produced documentary and other evidence either in obedience to a subpoena or in response to an invitation issued by the Board.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • criminal law, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Trial court, Tan Teng

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture