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.
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
