FRANCISCO BELTRAN, petitioner


vs.

FELIX SAMSON, Judge of the Second Judicial District, and FRANCISCO JOSE, Provincial Fiscal of Isabela, respondents
G.R. No. 32025, Sept. 23, 1929

Facts
Petitioner was ordered by the respondent judge to appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting. The order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the purpose of comparing the
petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or not it was he who wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified.

The petitioner applied for a writ of prohibition but the respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the remedy. Moreover, the fiscal under section 1687 of the Administrative Code, and the
proper judge, upon motion of the fiscal, may compel witnesses to be present at the investigation of any crime or misdemeanor. The petitioner, in refusing to perform what the fiscal demanded, sought refuge in
the constitutional provision contained in the Jones Law and incorporated in General Orders, No. 58 — provision found in paragraph 3, section 3 of the Jones Law which (in Spanish) reads: "Ni se le obligara a
declarar en contra suya en ningun proceso criminal" and has been incorporated in Criminal Procedure (General Orders, No. 58) in section 15 (No. 4 ) and section 56.


Issue
whether or not petitioner can be compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used for the determination whether he wrote certain documents which were supposed to be falsified.

Held
no. petitioner cannot be compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used for the determination whether he wrote certain documents which were supposed to be falsified.

the constitutional provision that no man accused of crime shall be compelled to be a witness against himself embraces as well the furnishing of evidence by other means than by word of mouth, the divulging, in
short, of any fact which the accused has a right to hold secret.

In this case, writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, 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, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. petitioner was being compelled to
write and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which did not exist, and which might identify him as the falsifier.

Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used for the determination whether he wrote certain documents which were supposed to be falsified.