would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit the crime of

Would place the witness under the strongest

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.

would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit the crime of perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent the extorting of confessions by duress. In the present case, if the defendant disclosed the whereabouts of the person taken, or shows that he was given his liberty, this disclosure may be used to obtain a conviction under article 481 of the Penal Code. United States v. Navarro - 3 PHIL. 143 (rationale) Tan Teng was charged with the crime of rape of one Oliva Pacomio, a girl 7 years of age. Upon this information, Tan Teng was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his clothing and examined. The policeman who examined Tan Teng swore that his body bore every sign of the fact that he was suffering from the venereal disease known as gonorrhea. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of Tan Teng and turned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a scientific analysis made of the same. The result of the examination showed that Tan Teng was suffering from gonorrhea. During trial, Tan Teng contended, among others, that the result of the scientific examination made by the Bureau of Science of the substance taken from his body, at or about the time he was arrested, was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea; as that to admit such evidence was to compel the defendant to testify against himself. Whether the substance taken from Tan Teng, which indicates that he has gonorrhea, cannot be used as evidence against Tan Teng on the ground that it is violative of the constitutional injunction against self- incrimination.
Image of page 1
Answer: As held in Holt vs. US (218 US 245), the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may be material. The objection, in principle, would forbid a court to look at a person and compare his features with a photograph in proof. Moreover the Court is not considering how far a court would go in compelling a man to exhibit himself, for when he is exhibited, whether voluntarily or by order, even if the order goes too far, the evidence if material, is competent. *United States v. Tan Teng - 23 PHIL.145 Ong Siu Hong was forced to discharge the morphine from his mouth. Ong Siu Hong appears to have been convicted by the lower court, based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who were members of the Secret Service. Ong Siu Hong's counsel raised the constitutional question that the accused was compelled to be a witness against himself. Whether Ong Siu Hong was compelled to be a witness against himself when the morphine was forced from his mouth Answer : To force a prohibited drug from the person of an accused is along the same line as requiring him to exhibit himself before the court; or putting in evidence papers and other articles taken from the room of an
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture