I.

Name:
Glene A. Nalla

II. Case Title

U.S. v. Tan Teng
G.R. No. 7081

III. Facts:
Tan Teng, herein respondent, was charged of committing carnal
knowledge with a certain Oliva Pacomio, a seven (7) year old girl. Accordingly,
after having taken a bath, Olivia went to her and the defendant herein followed
her. Tan asked for some face powder from Oliva and put the same upon her
private part. He then threw Oliva upon the floor and place his penis over hers.
Several days later, the sister of Oliva discovered that the latter was suffering from
a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. Oliva related to her sister what had
happened and positively identified Tan Teng as the culprit. Tan Teng was then
arrested and take to the police station and stripped his clothing to be examined.
The policemen took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of Tan and
turned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of scientific analysis. The
result of the examination showed that Tan was suffering from gonorrhea. Tan
Teng question the admissibility of the result as evidence against him as a form of
compelling him to testify against himself. The trial court found the defendant
guilty of the offense and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of 4 years 6
months and 11 days of prision correccional. Hence this review.

IV. Forensic Evidence Used

Specimen emitted from defendant’s body.

V. Discussion
The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness
against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to
extort communications from him, not an exlusion of his body as evidence, when it
may be material. The prohibition was simply against legal process to extract from
the defendant’s own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt.

In this case, the substance was taken from the body of the defendant
without his objection, the examination was made by a competent medical
authority and the result showed that the defendant was suffering from said
desease. The accused was not compelled to make any admission or answer any
questions, and the mere fact that an object found upon his body was examined
seems no more to infringe the rule invoked than would the introduction of stolen
property taken from the person of the thief.

The Court believe that the evidence clearly shows that the defendant was
suffering from the venereal desease and that through his brutal conduct said
disease was communicated to the victim. In a case like the present, it is always
difficult to secure positive and direct proof. Such crimes as the present are
generally proved by circumstantial evidence. In cases of rape, the courts of law
require corroborative proof, for the reason that such crimes are generally
committed in secret. Taking into account the number and credibility of the
witnesses and the fact that both parties were suffering from a common disease, the
Court is of the opinion that the defendant was guilty of the crime of “abusos
deshonestos”.