would place the witness under the strongest temptationto commit the crime of perjury, and of humanity, becauseit would prevent the extorting of confessions by duress.In the present case, if the defendant disclosed thewhereabouts of the person taken, or shows that he wasgiven his liberty, this disclosure may be used to obtain aconviction under article 481 of the Penal Code. UnitedStates v. Navarro - 3 PHIL. 143 (rationale)Tan Teng was charged with the crime of rape ofone Oliva Pacomio, a girl 7 years of age. Uponthis information, Tan Teng was arrested andtaken to the police station and stripped of hisclothing and examined. The policeman whoexamined Tan Teng swore that his body boreevery sign of the fact that he was suffering fromthe venereal disease known as gonorrhea. Thepoliceman took a portion of the substanceemitting from the body of Tan Teng and turned itover to the Bureau of Science for the purpose ofhaving a scientific analysis made of the same.The result of the examination showed that TanTeng was suffering from gonorrhea. During trial,Tan Teng contended, among others, that theresult of the scientific examination made by theBureau of Science of the substance taken fromhis body, at or about the time he was arrested,was not admissible in evidence as proof of thefact that he was suffering from gonorrhea; asthat to admit such evidence was to compel thedefendant to testify against himself. Whetherthe substance taken from Tan Teng, whichindicates that he has gonorrhea, cannot beused as evidence against Tan Teng on theground that it is violative of theconstitutional injunctionagainst self-incrimination.
Answer:As held in Holt vs. US (218 US 245), theprohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to bea witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use ofphysical or moral compulsion, to extort communicationsfrom 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 hisfeatures with a photograph in proof. Moreover the Courtis not considering how far a court would go in compellinga man to exhibit himself, for when he is exhibited,whether voluntarily or by order, even if the order goestoo far, the evidence if material, is competent. *UnitedStates v. Tan Teng - 23 PHIL.145Ong Siu Hong was forced to discharge themorphine from his mouth. Ong Siu Hongappears to have been convicted by the lowercourt, based on the testimonies of prosecutionwitnesses, who were members of the SecretService. Ong Siu Hong's counsel raised theconstitutional question that the accused wascompelled to be a witness against himself.Whether Ong Siu Hong was compelled to bea witness against himself when the morphinewas forced from his mouthAnswer: To force a prohibited drug from the person ofan accused is along the same line as requiring him toexhibit himself before the court; or putting in evidencepapers and other articles taken from the room of an