RIGHT OF SUSPECTS UNDER

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
I. WHEN RIGHTS AVAILABLE
PEOPLE VS MARA
FACTS:
Jimmy Din, the witness, with his friend, Nelson Tandoc, the deceased were
conversing with each other in front of the Lucky Hotel when suddenly a man from
the opposite side of the street made a dirty sign with his finger. The man
repeated the offensive act. Din and Tandoc followed the man and when they
caught up with the man in front of the Dunkin Donut, they demanded for
explanation. Two men arrived and inquired what was going on, suddenly Tandoc
slapped on of the two men. A brawl ensued. After that fist fights, the three men
ran away. Din and Tandoc decided to walk back to the hotel. When they were
about to enter the hotel, they noticed that the men whom they just had the fight
were running towards them. Sensing danger, they entered the hotel and waited
until the men were gone. But when Tandoc opened the door, he was shot by the
accused appellant here.
At around 3:45 AM, a police man received a report about the incident. In the
Lindas Ihaw-Ihaw, nearby is a bus company from whom they asked about the
incident. The guard of the bus company, pointed to the guard of Lindas Ihaw-
Ihaw. The policemen then proceeded to Lindas Ihaw-Ihaw and inquir
ed to that guard if he is the guard of the said establishment. After series of
questions, they learned that he is Samuel Marra. The policemen requested to
see the firearm of Marra, they went to the latters house. One of the policemen
asked Marra why he shot Tandoc. At first, Marra denied but after the policeman
said that someone saw him, he said that it is an act of self-defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Marra was under custodial investigation when he admitted the
killing but invoked self defense.
HELD:
NO. Custodial investigation involves any question initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into their custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation
ceases to be general inquiry into unsolved crime and begins to focus on a
particular suspect.
In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial investigation when he made
the admission. There was no coercion whatsoever to compel him to make such a
statement. Indeed he could already refused to answer the very start when the
policeman requested that they all go to his residence.
The admission of guilt by the accused may be used as evidence against him.
PEOPLE VS AMESTUZO
FACTS:
This is a case of robbery with rape by 8 men in the house of Mrs. Lacsamana
and ransacking the house including jewelries and money worth 728, 000 and
having sexual intercourse with one of Ms. Lacsamanas employees and niece.
After four days of the happening of the crime, Policemen with one suspect, went
to the handicraft factory in Pasay City to look for a certain Mario, who is one of
the suspects. Policemen looked for Mario but to no avail was not able to find him.
One of policemen then hit Ampatin at the back of his neck and said Niloloko
lang ata tayo ng taong ito. and magturo ka ng kahit sino.. It was at this juncture
that Ampatin pointed accused appellant Bagas as he was the first person
Ampatin chanced to look upon.
Thereafter, he was then arrested. On board the jeep, Ampatin told that he
committed a mistake by pointing at him. They were brought to the Urduja Police
Station in Caloocan City. When the complainants came, Bagas was brought out
and he was presented to the complainants. Complainants asked him if he know
Amestuzo and Vias. Bagas answered in negative. The policemen told the
complainant the he is one of the suspects.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the line up, without the benefit of a counsel is a violation of his
Constitutional Right
HELD:
No. Sec 12, Article 12 of 1987 Constitution, or the so called Miranda rights, may
be invoked by a person while he is UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds
questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. Police line up is not
part of custodial investigation; hence the right to counsel guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.The right to counsel attaches
only during the custodial investigation and cannot be in police line up because it
is not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during the
police line up, the process has not yet shifted from the INVESTIGATORY to the
ACCUSATORY.
FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE VS CA
FACTS:
Feeder International Line is the owner and operator of the ULU WIA, a vessel of
foreign and Honduran registry and was carrying 1 100 metric tons of gas oil and
1000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation in
Zamboanga. The said vessel had documents or permits to leave from Singapore.
The vessel anchored in Guianon Island in Iloilo without necessary permits from
customs. The matter that that the said vessel came to the knowledge of the
customs because of the information from a civilian. From then, the cargo of the
said vessel were subject to seizure by the Iloilo authorities after due
investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there is illegal
importation on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Whether or not the testimonies of Desposa and Torres taken without the
assistance of a counsel is a violation of Constitutional Rights.
HELD:
First, No. It has been held that the matter, is not criminal in nature but of civil and
administrative in nature.Hence it is quite clear that the forfeiture proceedings
under the Tariff and Customs Laws are not criminal in nature since they do not
result in the conviction of the offender now in the imposition of the penalty
provided for in Section 3601 of the code. The seizure is imposed for the
enforcement of the Custom Laws.
Further the Court ruled that the Feeder International is liable by proving its intent
to unload the said items without permit from the Iloilo authorities, and which were
supported by substantial evidences.
Second, No. The fact that testimonies of Deposa and Torres were given without
the assistance of a counsel may not be considered an outright violation of the
constitutional right to be assisted by a counsel. The right is not indispensable
unless required by the Constitution or the law. Exception is made in the charter
only during the custodial investigation of a person suspected of a crime, who
may not waive his right to counsel except in writing and in the presence of a
counsel, and during the trial of the accused who has the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, either retained by him or provided for him by the
government at its expense.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a party in a NONCRMINAL
proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that without such
representation he will not be bound by such proceedings. As discussed earlier,
the case at bar is not a criminal proceedings but is of pure civil and
administrative in nature.
II. RIGHTS INCLUDED
1. MIRANDA DOCTRINE
A. RA 7348:
1. The person arrested, detained, or invited under custodial investigation shall be
informed in the language known to or understood by him of the reason of his arrest
and he must be present with a warrant of arrest, if any. Other warnings, information,
or communication must be in a language understood by him.
2. He must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, and every statement
makes by him may be used as evidence against him.
3. He must be informed of his right to be assisted at all times and with the presence of
a competent and independent lawyer, preferable of his own choice.
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer, or if he cannot afford the services of
the lawyer, one will be provided to him, and that a lawyer may also be engaged by
any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court after petition of the
accused, or one acting in his behalf.
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no
custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his
counsel or after a valid waiver has been made.
6. The person arrested, must be informed of his right to communicate or confer in the
most expedient means - telephone, radio, letter or messenger - with his counsel,
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family, or by his counsel, or be
visited by / confer with duly accredited national or international non-governmental
organization. it shall be the duty of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished.
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights, provided that
it is made voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently and ensure he understand the same.
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed
that it must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must
be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to
speak.
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at
any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with
warning that once he make such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the
same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already
begun.
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain
silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at
any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some
questions or volunteered some statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be,
obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY
FACTS:
Larry, the responded herein is an employee of Elvira Chan, the mother of the Ma.
Victoria Chan, 12 years old, who is the owner of the unfinished big house being
built. That on Sunday morning of 8AM, he was with Gregorio Rivera in a drinking
spree but went home when he already was drunk at around 10AM. At about
9PM, the respondent herein showed up in the store of Norgina Rivera, sister in
law of the mother of the accused, to buy lugaw. Norgina asked Larry Mahinay
why he appeared to be so uneasy and his hair was disarranged, he was also still
drunk and walking in a zigzagging manner. Meanwhile, Elvira noticed that her
daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing.
On the following day, the respondent at about 2AM boarded a jeepney in
Talipapa, and alighted at the top of the bridge of the North Expressway and had
thereafter disappeared.
The same morning, a certain Boy found the body of Ma. Victoria Chan, in a
septic tank and reported the matter to her parents.
The parents, with the policemen tried to look for Larry where he worked before,
in Caloocan, but to no avail, was not able to find him.
It was in Batangas where Larry was apprehended. From then, Larry, with the
assistance of the counsel, made an extrajudicial confession. However, during the
arraignment, he retracted his statement and testified that he made it involuntary
due to fear, which according to him that he would be salvage by the policemen
who arrested him if he would not admit the crime. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
The issue here boils down to the credibility of the witnesses.
HELD:
Settled is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter
best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses department on the stand
while testifying.
The absence of any improper motive or ill-motive on the part on the part of the
principal witnesses for the prosecution all the more strengthens the conclusion
that no such motive exists.
Though it is not enough to only have testimonies from credible witnesses to
produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the Court gave credence to
several circumstantial evidence, which upon thorough review, were more than
enough to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
B. KINDS OF INVOLUNTARY/ COERCED CONFESSIONS
PEOPLE VS OBRERO
FACTS:
Petitioner herein was charged and convicted beyond reasonable doubt or robbery with
homicide.
Petitioner was a delivery boy of Angie Cabosas, whose business was selling chickens
to customers. The business was located at Blumentritt Manila.
Petitioner, in the morning, was asked to deliver dressed chickens to Emma Cabrera, a
regular customer at Room 4D Gatlin Building in Recto Ave., Sta. Cruz, Manila. At
about 10 AM, accused appellant went back to his employer and turned over the
amount of P2,000.
Pat. Ines testified that, Anita Delos Reyes saw the accused appellant running down the
stairs of Gatlin Building with blood on his hands. And that on the same day,
accused appellant, with the assistance of counsel, Atty. Delos Reyes, the
chairman of Western Police District and was referred by the precinct where the
accused appellant was brought, made an extra judicial confession that he
participated in the killing of Nena Berjuega and Remedios Hitta, who were
househelps of Emma Cabrera.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the right of accused appellant to counsel has been violated in the form
of coercion.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that there are two form of coercion namely
1. Those which are the product of third degree methods; torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt in paragraph 2 of
Section 12 of Article 3 of the Bill of Rights.
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which
are subject of paragraph 2 of section 12 of Article 3 of the Bill of
Rights.
In the case at bar, accused appellant claims that his confession was obtained through
force and threat however he has not shown any evidence supporting it.
Although he was assisted by a counsel, Atty. Delos Reyes, was referred to him by the
precinct where he was detained, hence, the counsel is the chairman of WPD.
Supreme court held that although Atty. Delos Reyes is a competent counsel, he
cannot be considered as an independent counsel contemplated by the
constitution since it cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor,
municipal attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse
to the accused.
C. RIGHTS TO COUNSEL
GAMBOA VS CRUZ
FACTS:
Petitioner herein was arrested and was brought to the police station because of
vagrancy. The next day, the petitioner and with other 5 detainees were ask to line
up. The complainant, meanwhile, during the line up pointed to the petitioner
herein as a suspect of robbery. After that, he was asked to sit in front of the
complainant while the latter is being investigated. An information of robbery has
been filed against the herein petitioner.
During the arraignment, the prosecution offered and presented its evidence.
While on the other hand, the petitioner, with the assistance of his counsel,
instead preparing for his evidence, file a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer of
evidence. The petitioner filed this motion on the ground that the conduct of the
line up, without notice, and in the absence of his counsel violated his
constitutional right to counsel and to due process.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners right to counsel and to due process was violated
during the line up.
HELD:
No. The Rights to counsel and to due process is protected by the constitution
whether it be 1973 or 1987.
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, or when the
investigating officers tries to elicit or ask information from the accuse,even
though the questions appeases to be innocent. At this point of stage, the
assistance of the counsel is needed in order to avoid the pernicious practice of
extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips fo the person
undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an offense.
When the petitioner was asked to line up with other detainees, he was not asked
any question nor to answer. The police line up is not wart of custodial inquest,
hence the petitioner was not entitled to right to counsel.
Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, the right to counsel attaches at the start
of the investigation against the respondent, and even before the adversary
judicial proceedings against the accused begins.
While the court finds no real need to afford a suspect the services of counsel
during a police line up, the moment there is a move to elicit admissions or
confessions, even a plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous
at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel,
unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the
presence of the counsel.
PEOPLE VS VIDUYA
FACTS:
Respondent herein was charged of parricide for wilfully, intentionally and
feloniously killing her husband, Atty. Jose Viduya by stabbing the latter to death
with the use of a knife.
Mrs. Remedios Domingo, their lessee for 25 years heard moaning and thudding
sound thinking that Atty. Jose was having a heart attack. She called Melano
Cambel, the family driver as well as a lessee of their apartment to look for Atty.
When Cambel, entered the house, he saw Atty. Viduya leaning on the
refrigerator with blood over his body. He asked, the responded herein what
happened but she said Magnanakaw, Magnanakaw.
Florentino Bagallon, investigator, went to the crime scene to investigate. He also
invited the accused and her son, to go with him for an investigation.
During the first two salaysay that the accused herein made, she stated that the
deceased was stabbed by robbers since she stated dahil sa panloloob.
Later, on the same date as she gave her second salaysay, she made an
extrajudicial confession and admitted the killing of her husband but claimed that
she acted on self defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in admitting the extra judicial confession of the
accused and the same having been signed without the assistance of counsel
and being involuntary and uncorroborated.
HELD:
Right to counsel has been guaranteed by section 12, Article 3 of the Bill of
Rights. In the case at bar, the extra judicial confession made by the accused is
undisputed to have been executed without the assistance of a counsel.
During the custodial investigation, when she was told about her rights to counsel,
she answered back Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (Fiscal Domingo Mendoza)
kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado. Fiscal or a Prosecutor cannot be a
lawyer for the accused at the same time, even during the custodial investigation.
Allowing the Fiscal would render the illusory the protection given to the
accused during the custodial investigation.
Hence, when the accused made the statement, Nandiyan naman po soi
Fiscal, kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado. is an indication that she did
not fully understand her in-custody rights, furthermore, it cannot be said that
she knowingly and intelligently waived those rights.
To be validly waived, it should not only be made voluntary, but knowingly and
intelligently which presupposes an awareness or understanding of what is
being waived.
D. ADMISSIBILITY (FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE)
PEOPLE VS JARA
FACTS:
Petitioner Jara herein was charged of robbery with parricide and murder, while
the other two, namely Reymundo Vergara and Roberto Bernadas, with robbery
with homicide.
At about June 9 1978, about 1:30 AM, at Malvar Street, Puerto Princesa,
Palawan, the above mentioned accused conspired, confederate with each other
to rob and kill two persons in the name of Luisa Jara, the wife of Felicisimo Jara,
and Amparo Bantique. They killed the two by bludgeoning them with a hammer
and stabbing on their vital parts with pair of scissors.
Vergara and Bernadas were apprehended and made an extrajudicial confession
and even the reenactment of the crime, before the Provincial Commander of the
Philippine Constabulary in Palawan and other police investigators, admitting that
they, and pointing to Jara as the mastermind, killed the decease, Luisa Jara and
Amparo Bantigue. They made the said confession and reenactment of the crime
without the assistance and benefit of a counsel.
During the arraignment, Vergara and Bernadas however retracted their
extrajudicial statements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the extrajudicial confession made by Vergara and Bernadas were
admissible.
HELD:
No. In order for the extrajudicial confession to be valid it should be voluntarily
given,and now, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the extrajudicial
confession was voluntarily given (adopted from Miranda case).
In the case at bar, and the record shows that the interrogation was made
incommunicado, wherein Vergara and Bernadas where each interrogated,
surrounded by the policemen.
With the testimony of Philippine Constabulary Sergeant, Oscar Ponce De Leon,
assigned at the PC Medical Dispensary TESTIFIED that he treated Bernadas for
cigarette burns and Vergara for a wound at the tip of his right hand. Thus it
cannot be discounted that the effect of incommunicado questioning, lighted
cigarettes and other means which leave physical marks were utilized to secure
voluntary confession. Since the confessions were inadmissible, Vergara and
Bernadas must be acquitted.
PEOPLE VS BALLISTEROS
FACTS:
Ballisteros, Avestro and Gavante where charged of murder qualified with
treachery by wilfully, intentionally and feloniously killing Romeo Abad thus adding
acts which are not necessary on killing, the slashing of the deceased intestines.
A certain Eliza Mercaeda testified that when shes about to go to the ricefield of
Romeo Abad, she heard two shouts Huwag, Huwag. and from then she saw
the accused appellant and the two others emerged from the bamboo grove.
The killing was then reported to the police station in Pandi, Bulacan. The three
accused appellants were arrested.
However, Ernesto Galvante was discharged from the information and became a
state witness.The lower court gave full credit to the prosecution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in giving weight and substance to the testimonies
of the prosecution witness.
HELD:
Lower courts were given the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witness
testifying before it. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, it can
be expected to determine, with reasonable direction, whose testimony to accept
and which witness to disbelieve.
When there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for
the prosecution was actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that he
was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the
present case, it has been proven that such ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witness was even affirmed by both appellants who testified that they
do not know of any reason why said witness would fabricate a serious charge
like murder against them.
Further it is also axiomatic that the credibility of the witness be supported
by circumstantial evidence when:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inference are derived are proven and;
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
CONFESSION GIVEN TO MEDIA
PEOPLE VS ENDINO
FACTS:A
Accused appellant herein, Gerry Galgarin with his nephew,
Edward Endino were charged of murder for killing one,
Dennis Aquino and a boyfriend of Clara Agagas.
An information was filed agains them. Edwin Endino,
however remained at large while, Gerry Galgarin was
arrested in Antipolo. While at the airport to be brought
back to Palawan, they stopped at the ABS-CBN television
station where the accused Gerry Galgarin was interviewed
by the reporters.
Video footages of the interview were taken showing Gerry
Galgarin admitting his guilt pointing his nephew, Edwin
Endino as the gunman.
The court then admitted the video as evidence of guilt
against Gerry Galgarin.
ISSUE:
Whether or not admission thru media is admissible as
evidence.
HELD:
Yes. The confession made by Gerry Galgarin was without
force and coercion and was made publicly and in front of
the newsmen. Such confession does not form part of the
custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers
but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and
forgiveness from the public.
CONFESSION GIVEN TO MUNICIPAL MAYOR
PEOPLE VS ANDAN
FACTS:
Accused appellant herein was charged of raped and
homicide and was sentenced of the most severe penalty,
death.
22 Year old student of XXX, AAA, left her home for her
school dormitory to prepare for her final examinations.
While walking along the subdivision, the accused invited
her to his house by using the pretext that the blood
pressure of his wifes grandmother should be taken. Not
knowing that there were noone in the house, she
proceeded. Upon getting inside, the accused then wilfully,
intentionally, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with
her, while still unconscious. In the evening, accused
appellant drag her in to the pigpen to transfer her to the
vacant lot. When AAA moaned, accused appellant hit her
with a concrete block on her face. Which caused her
death.
Due to gruesome death which captured publics attention,
the Mayor was tasked to for a crack team of police officers
to look for the accused.
Accused was arrested in his parents house.
During the custodial investigation on the day when he was
arrested, it was admitted that his confession was made
without the assistance of counsel. The next day after that,
when the Mayor personally went to the the accused, the
accused whisphered and asked if they can talk privately, to
the mayor saying, Mayor patawarin mo ako, ako ang
pumatay kay AAA.
The mayor, upon confession of the accused, opened the
door of the custodial investigation room and let the media
videotaped the confession.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the confession of the accused to the mayor
is inadmissible in evidence against him
HELD:
No. It is true that municipal mayor has operational
supervision and control over the local police and may
arguably deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes
of applying section 12, Article 3 of the Bill of Rights.
However, the confession was not made in response to any
interrogation by the latter. In fact the mayor did not
question appellant at all. No police authority ordered
appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself who
spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for
a private meeting.
SIGNING OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPTS
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO
FACTS:
Accused appellant herein was charged in violation of RA
6425.
Rose, a certain informant informed to the police authority
that a certain Albert Casimiro is engaged in the distribution
or sale of marijuana. Police Chief Leleng formed a buy
bust team wherein PO2 Supa is the poseur buyer. The
entrapment was held outside Anthonys Wine and Grocery
at the YMCA Building. During the operation and upon
receiving the marijuana from Albert Casimiro, PO2 Supa
made a sign so Casimiro would be arrested, even without
giving the money yet.
PO2 Supa made a receipt of property seized, but the
receipt was signed by the accused without the presence of
a counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence obtained is insufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
First, the receipt is an acknowledgement that there was a
property that was seized during the buy bust operation,
and should not therefore affect the liability of the accused.
The receipt is issued by the police in accordance with their
operation. The receipt should not be treated as admission
or confession.
Hence the receipt was signed without the assistance of a
lawyer.
Receipt is also a proof that the marijuana was seized from
the suspect or owner, which is an offense under the law.
Having been made without the assistance of a counsel, it
cannot be accepted as proof that marijuana was seized
from him.
The accused was acquitted.
GIVING URINE SAMPLES
GUTANG VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
Petitioner herein was charged in violation of RA 6425 and
was arrested in his residence by PNP-NARCOM who were
armed with warrant of arrest.
The PNP-NARCOM also searched in the house finding
illegal drugs and paraphernalia for the use and for sealing
the same. They also searched the car parked in the
compound finding a Rayban case with undetermined
amount of shabu residue.
The petitioner herein with other offenders were brought to
the PNP Crime Lab at Camp Crame. According to PNP
NARCOM which is also based in Camp Crame a letter
request for drug dependency test on the four. They were
asked to provide urine sample. The accused complied by
providing their urine sample. The test on urine samples
yielded positive for drugs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the urine sample taken without the
presence of a counsel was obtained in violation of his
Constitutional Rights.
HELD:
No. The Right to counsel begins from the time a person is
taken into custody and placed under investigation for the
commission of a crime. What the Constitution prohibits is
the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of
his body evidence when it may be material. In fact, an
accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or
measured or his garments or shoes be removed or
replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing
things to be done, without running afoul of the proscription
against testimonial compulsion. This was a mechanical act
the accused was asked to undergo which was not meant
to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical
attributes determinable by simple observation.