What Is The Right Against Self.docx

What is the right against self-incrimination?

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

What is the right against self-incrimination?

A person’s right against self-incrimination is enshrined in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. (Rosete vs. Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006)

When is this right available?

The right is available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)

Who may claim the right against self-incrimination?

It may be claimed not only by the accused but also by any witness to whom a question calling for an incriminating answer is addressed. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)

When can the the right against self-incrimination be invoked?

1. Ordinary witness - The right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty. (Rosete vs. Lim)

2. Accused in a criminal case - An accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. For, in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction." This rule may apply even to a co-defendant in a joint trial. (Chavez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-29169, August 19, 1968)

The right of the defendant in a criminal case “to be exempt from being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. (Rosete vs. Lim)

The same principle shall apply to the respondent in an administrative proceeding where the respondent may be subjected to sanctions of a penal character, such as the cancellation of his license to practice medicine or the forfeiture of property. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)

It is clear, therefore, that only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded. This Court applied the exception – a party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the witness stand – in administrative cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. It is likewise the opinion of the Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls. (Rosete vs. Lim)

What is the scope of the right against self-incrimination?

● The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but testimonial compulsion only (Alih vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279).

The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of his guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. (People vs. Malimit, People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167)

Thus, substance emitted from the body of the accused may be received in evidence. Hair samples taken from the accused may be admitted in evidence against him [People v. Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, December 9,1999] Evidence involving deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is likewise admissible, and in People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002, and in People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, was utilized to affirm the death sentence on the accused found guilty of child-rape with homicide.

A person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing and paraffin testing, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. In People v. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 27, 2000, where immediately after the incident, the policemen took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, it was held that there was no violation. In fact, the accused may be compelled to submit to a physical examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused. In U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil 145, a person charged with rape was ordered examined for gonorrhea, which might have been transmitted to the victim; in Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil 62, a woman accused of adultery was

subjected to medical examination to determine if she was pregnant. In People v. Tranca, 35 SCRA 455, the accused was made to undergo ultra-violet ray examination to determine the presence of fluorescent powder dusted on the money used in a buy-bust operation. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)

● The prohibition extends to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers and chattels that may be used as evidence against the witness, except where the State has a right to inspect the same such as the books of accounts of corporations, under the police or taxing power. Thus, in Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 122, the Supreme Court said that the demand of the PCGG that the petitioners — lawyers and co-accused — would be excluded from the case if they revealed the identity of their clients and submit the documents related to the suspected transactions, violated the right of the petitioners against self-incrimination. They did not have to wait until they were called to testify; they could raise the objection because they were not merely witnesses; they were parties in the case for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. However, in Almonte v. Vasquez, supra., it was held that where the subpoena duces tecum is directed to government officials required to produce official documents/public records which are in their possession or custody, then there is no violation of the right against self incrimination. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)

● The privilege also protects the accused against any attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen of his handwriting in connection with a prosecution for falsification

Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hand, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier.

For the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.

And we say that the present case is more serious than that of compelling the production of documents or chattels, because here the witness is compelled to write and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which does not exist, and which may identify him as the falsifier. [Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil 570].

May the right against self-incrimination be waived?

Yes. The right against self-incrimination may be waived, either directly or by a failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently made. Thus, the accused who takes the witness stand voluntarily and offers testimony in his behalf may be cross-examined and asked incriminating questions on any matter he testified to on direct examination. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)