Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
CASE FACTS
1.US v NAVARRO Navarro et al were charged of illegal detention committed.
(1904) They all allegedly by force and violence kidnapped Feliz
Punsalan. Up to this date, the whereabouts of Punsalan are
unknown. The defendants upon arraignment pleaded non
guilty.
Art 481 of RPC provides that: one who illegally detains
another and fails to give information concerning his
whereabouts, or does not prove that he set him at liberty, shall
be punished by cadena temporal to life imprisonment.
In other words, failure on the part of defendant to testify
regarding the whereabouts of the person deprived of liberty the
punishment may be increased. The very thing that will lessen
his penalty will also result to his confession.
2.US v TAN TENG The defendant herein raped Oliva Pacomio, a 7-yr-old girl.
(1912) Tan Teng was gambling near the house of the victim and it
was alleged that he entered her home and threw the victim on
the floor and place his private parts over hers. Several days
later, Pacomio was suffering from a disease called gonorrhea.
Pacomio told her sister about what had happened and reported
it to the police.
Tan Teng was called to appear in a police line-up and the
victim identified him. He was then stripped of his clothing and
was examined by a policeman. He was found to have the same
symptoms of gonorrhea. The policeman took a portion of the
substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned
it over to the Bureau of Science. The results showed that the
defendant was suffering from gonorrhea.
The lower court held that the results show that the disease that
the victim had acquired came from the defendant herein. Such
disease was transferred by the unlawful act of carnal
knowledge by the latter. The defendant alleged that the said
evidence should be inadmissible because it was taken in
violation of his right against self-incrimination.
3.VILLAFLOR v SUMMERS Petitioner Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery.
The trial judge ordered the petitioner to subject herself into
physical examination to test whether or not she was pregnant
to prove the determine the crime of adultery being charged to
her. Herein petitioner refused to such physical examination
interposing the defense that such examination was a violation
of her constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
4. PASCUAL v BOARD OF Pascual Jr. was charged of malpractice by the Board of
MEDICAL EXAMINERS Medical Examiners. During the trial, the counsel for
complainants wished to present the petitioner to be the first
witness. Petitioner herein objected, relying on the
ISSUE/S
Whether or not this law violates
his right against self-
incrimination.
Whether or Not the physic
al examination conducted was a
violation of the defendant‘s
rights
against self-incrimination.
Whether or Not the
physical examination was a
violation of the petitioner‘s
constitutional rights
against self-incrimination.
Whether or not the right against
self-incrimination is available
also to administrative
proceedings.
HELD
It is the opinion that Art 481 has been repealed by Section 5 of the Phil Bill
which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself. They cannot be compelled to give information on the
whereabouts of the kidnapped victim.
Compelling a party in a criminal case to give evidence against himself would be a
law reversing the presumption of innocence, and would violate the fundamental
principles binding alike ipon the legislature and the courts.
It is the duty of the court in order to convict one of a crime, to produce evidence
showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused can not be called upon
either by express words or acts to assist in the production of such evidence; nor
should his silence be taken as proof against him. He has a right to rely on the
presumption of innocence until the prosecution proves hum guilty of every
element with which he is charged.
The court held that the taking of a substance from his body was not a violation of
the said right.
He was neither compelled to make any admissions or to answer any questions.
The substance was taken from his body without his objection and was examined
by competent medical authority. The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill
of Rights is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from him, and not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it
may be material. The evidence obtained in this way from the accused is not
testimony but his body itself.
The doctrine contended for by the appellants would prevent the courts from
making an examination of the body of the defendant. It would be the same as if
the offender apprehended was a thief and the object stolen by him may be used as
evidence against him.
No. It is not a violation of her constitutional rights. The rule that the
constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against compulsory
testimonial self-incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular
inspection of the body of the accused is permissible.
Yes. It was noted that while the matter referred to is an administrative charge,
there is clearly the imposition of a penalty. The proceeding for forfeiture while
administrative in character thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect. The case
 constitutional provision against self-incrimination.
However, it was contended by the respondent invoking that the
petitioner can present himself in the witness stand, and later on
can object to questions incriminating in nature.
Also, it was invoked in this case that the constitutional rights
against self-incrimination is not available to administrative
proceedings.
5. PEOPLE v GALLARDE Petitioner Gallarde was an accused in the crime of rape
with homicide. He was later on convicted of the crime of
murder only by RTC. Gallarde, appealed in the decision
of RTC convicting him with murder.
The Supreme Court questioned the rejection of the trial
court of the photographs taken of Gallarde immediately
after the incident in the ground that "the same were taken
while petitioner was already under the mercy of the
police."
Moreover, Gallarde also contended that he was not
positively identified as the assailant since there was no
eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime.
Whether or not the taking of
pictures of an accused violates
of his constitutional right against
self-incrimination.
before us is not dissimilar with criminal charges/cases; petitioner would be
similarly disadvantaged. He could suffer not the forfeiture of property but the
revocation of his license as a medical practitioner, for some an even greater
deprivation.
In the American Supreme Court Ruling, "We conclude ... that the Self-
Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been absorbed in the
Fourteenth, that it extends its protection to lawyers as well as to other individuals,
and that it should not be watered down by imposing the dishonor of disbarment
and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it."
The stand of the respondent herein that the constitutional guarantee against self-
incrimination should be limited to allowing a witness to object to questions while
in the witness stand is mistaken. It was stated that "to forego testimony, to remain
silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted, unfettered
exercise of his own free genuine will."
The provision against self-incrimination was made to enable the citizen to create
a zone of privacy which government may not force to surrender to his detriment.
"The provision, as doubtless it was designed, would be construed with the utmost
liberality in favor of the right of the individual intended to be served."
No. The taking of pictures of an accused, even without the assistance of counsel,
being purely a mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional rights
against self-incrimination. The constitutional right of an accused against self-
incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the
prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance
and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The essence of the right against self-
incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against
himself through a testimonial act.
In Gallarde’s contention that he cannot be charged because there was no
eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime, the court found it with no
credence. Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not
per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime.
There are two types of positive identification:
1. A witness may identity a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the
perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the
commission of the crime.
2. Although a witness may not have actually seen the very act of
commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a
suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when

6. MAPA v SANDIGANBAYAN Petitioner herein was charged with violation of Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices. However he was granted an
immunity from suit by the PCGG related to the previous
charges against him, provided that he will testify as
witness against the Marcoses in criminal proceedings in
the US v. Ferdinand Marcos.
In short, to insure the conviction of the Marcoses, the
prosecution solicited the testimonies of witnesses which
includes Mapa.
The immunity given to Mapa includes immunity from
investigation, prosecution and punishment for any offense
with reference to which his testimony and information are
given, including any offense and commission of which
any information, directly or indirectly derived from such
testimony or other information is used as basis thereof,
except a prosecution for perjury and/or giving false
testimony.
During the trial, Ferdinand Marcos died and La Bella, the
American prosecutor dispensed the testimony of Mapa
and thereby acquitted Imelda Marcos. Since Mapa, was
not able to testify, it was contended that the immunity
from suit of Mapa took without force and effect.
However, the record shows that the petitioners provided
information to the PCGG relating to the prosecution of
the cases against the Marcoses in New York.
The case questions the validity of the immunity of the
petitioners herein. PCGG EO. No. 14 Sec 5 states that it
has the power to grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person who provides information or
testifies in any investigation…
Whether or not the PCGG has
the right to impose immunity to
the petitioners herein.
1.
2.
2. 2. Used-and-derivative-use - a witnessed is only assured that his or her particular
the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime.
In the absence then in the information of an allegation of any qualifying
circumstance, GALLARDE cannot be convicted of murder. An accused cannot
be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the
complaint or information under which he is tried. An accused cannot be
convicted of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information for
which he is tried, or is necessarily included in that which is charged. He has a
right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before
he is put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in
the complaint or information under which he is tried would be an unauthorized
denial of that right.
YES. There was nothing irregular when PCGG granted a section 5 immunity to
petitioners while they were already undergoing trial in Criminal Case No. 11960.
Section 5 of E.O. 14, as amended, does not prohibit the PCGG from granting
immunity to persons already charged in court and undergoing trial. As long as the
privilege of immunity so given will in the judgment of the PCGG assist it in
attaining its greater objectives, the PCGG is well within legal grounds to exercise
this power at any stage of the proceedings.
Contrary to the ruling of the respondent court, the failure of petitioners to testify
in the RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York cannot nullify their
immunity. They have satisfied the requirements both of the law and the parties'
implementing agreements. Under section 5 of E.O. No. 14, as amended, their
duty was to give information to the prosecution, and they did.
Wherefore, the petitioner must be acquitted on the basis of the immunity granted
by the PCGG, which under the law has the power to grant immunity.
In the US, there are two types of immunity:
1. Transactional Immunity - is broader in the scope of its protection. By its grant
the witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offence whatsoever arising out of
the act or transaction.
testimony and evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her in a
subsequent prosecution.
The SC held that “Finally, we reject respondent court's ruling that the grant of
section 5 immunity must be strictly construed against the petitioners. It
simplistically characterized the grant as special privilege, as if it was gifted by
the government,ex gratia. In taking this posture, it misread the raison d'etre and
the long pedigree of the right against self-incrimination vis-a-vis immunity
statutes.”
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

CASE FACTS ISSUE/S HELD

1. People v. Estoita
2. People v. Esparas
3. Echagaray v. Secretary of
Justice

Whether the writing from the fiscal's dictation by Beltran for the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the
scope and meaning of the constitutional provision (i.e. "Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.")