1686

United States v. Ong Siu Hong

36 Phil. 735
August 3, 1917
FACTS:
Ong Siu Hong was convicted by the lower court based on the testimonies of members of
the secret service and forcing him to discharge the morphine from his mouth.
The counsel for appellant Ong Siu Hong raises the constitutional question that the
accused was compelled to be a witness against himself, for forcing him to discharge the
morphine from his mouth.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the constitutional right of Ong Siu Hong was violated for compelling him
to be a witness against himself.
HELD:
1. No.
The Court ruled that there is no reason to disturb the findings of the lower court, especially
the credibility of the members of the Secret Service as witnesses. By analogy, the case of US v.
Tan Teng was applied, wherein substances produced by the body of the accused Tan Teng was
examined to determine whether he has gonorrhea, to prove that he was the one who raped the 7year old victim who obtained the disease, claiming that she was raped. The Court ruled in that
case that it did not violate accused Tan Tengs right against self-incrimination for the purpose of
the constitutional prohibition is only against the legal process to extract from the defendant's own
lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt. In the case at bar, to force a prohibited drug from
the person of the accused is like requiring him to exhibit himself before the court or putting in
evidence papers and other articles taken from the room of the accused in his absence. It would be
an erroneous construction of the Bill of Rights in sustaining the argument that any article or
substance taken from the person accused cannot be given in evidence. As reiterated, the
prohibition is only to prevent testimonial compulsion by oral examination in order to extort
unwilling confessions from prisoners implicating them in the commission of a crime.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio