RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

SCOPE AND COVERAGE:

it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting
from the suspect testimony that may convict him.
Practical because a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure
himself for his own protection.

MORAL OR PHYSICAL COMPULSION TO EXTORT COMMUNICATIONS ONLY (NOT WHEN OBJECT

EVIDENCE IS INVOLVED)
People vs Malimit:
In his second assignment of error, appellant asseverates that the admission as
evidence of Malaki’s wallet[21] together with its contents, viz., (1) Malaki’s
residence certificate;[22] (2) his identification card;[23] and (3) bunch of keys,
[24] violates his right against self-incrimination.[25] Likewise, appellant sought
for their exclusion because during the custodial investigation, wherein he pointed
to the investigating policemen the place where he hid Malaki’s wallet, he was not
informed of his constitutional rights.

We are not persuaded. The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our
fundamental law finds no application in this case. This right, as put by Mr.
Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United States,[26] "x x x is a prohibition of the use of
physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him x x x." It is
simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]’s own
lips, against his will, admission of his guilt.[27] It does not apply to the
instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating
statement but an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in
his treatise on evidence, thus, said:

"If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his [physical
control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his physical control in whatever
form exercise, then, it would be possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in
his house, with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the authority of
the law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained by forcibly
overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the evidential articles
- a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not merely compulsion that
is the kernel of the privilege, ***

The Supreme Court quoted Justice Holmes in the case of Holt v. United States,23
where he said: "The
prohibitionofcompelling a man in a criminalcourtto be a witness against himself is
a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications
from
him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material."

EXTENDS TO COMPULSION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, PAPERS AND CHATTELS

UNLESS State has a right to inspect the same, such as the books of accounts of
corporations, under the police power.
(Relate difference of right to privacy of communications and right against
unreasonble searches and seizures)

However, in Almonte v. Vasquez, supra., it was held that where the subpoena duces
tecum is directed to
government officials required to produce official documents/public records which
are in their possession or custody, then there is no violation of the right against
self incrimination

EXTENDS TO COMPULSION OF FURNISHING A SPECIMEN OF HIS HANDWRITING

The Supreme Court here said:
"Writing is something more than moving the body, or the
hand, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical
act, because it requires the application ofintelligence 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."

WHEN AVAILABLE:
As a rule, the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked only when and as
the incriminating question is
asked, since the witness has no way ofknowing in advance the nature or effectofthe
question to be put to him.
This istrue, however, only of the ordinary witness. In the case of
the accused himself, it is settled that he can refuse at the
outset and altogether to take the stand as a witness for the
prosecution, on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation
will to be incriminate him.

As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the

witness is entitled to the privilege. In all other cases, he
may not refuse to answer provided the question is relevant
and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to
embarrass him or subject to him to civil liability. The
right may not be invokedwhere the question asked relates
to a past criminality for which the witness can no longer
be prosecuted, as where the crimewas alreadyprescribed
or he has already been acquitted or convictedthereof. He
may also not refuse to answer where he has been previ
ouslygranted immunity under a validlyenacted statute.1

APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS: IF PENAL IN CHARACTERR!!!

In a criminal prosecution, the accused may not be compelled to take
the witness stand, on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of the
interrogation will be to incriminate him [Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663].
The same principle shall apply to the respondent in an administrative proceeding
where the respondent may be subjected to sanctions of a penal character, such
as the cancellation of his license to practice medicine [Pascual v. Board of
Medical
Examiners, 28 SCRA 345] or the forfeiture of property [Cabal v. Kapunan, 6 SCRA
1064]

What if a dentist is forced to testify in an admin hearing about revoction of his

license?
I will file a petition for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction with
the Regional
Trial Court. The privilege against self-incrimination is available not only in
judicial
proceedings but also in administrative investigations. In Pascual v. Board of
Medical
Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969), it was held that the revocation of a license as a
medical practitioner can be an even greater deprivation than mere forfeiture of
property.
In some aspects it is similar to criminal proceedings and, therefore, the
respondent
cannot be made to testify as a witness for the complainant.

APPLICATION:
The accused may be released via habeas corpus if this constitutional right was
violated
-Chavez vs CA

Exclusionary Rule:
Sec. 12 Art III
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof
(right against self-incrimination) shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

Immunity from suit is the only consequence flowing from a violation of one's
constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his
right to counsel and his right not to be coerced into confessing.

IMMUNITY STATUTES:

Immunity statutes may be generally classified into two: one, which grants "use
immunity"; and the other, which grants what is known as "transactional immunity".
The distinction between the two is as follows: "Use immunity" prohibits use of
witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the
criminal prosecution of the witness. On the other hand, "transactional immunity"
grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates.

In transactional immunity: The testimony of a voluntary witness in accord with his

sworn statement operates as a pardon for the criminal charges to which it relates.

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
While the legislature is the source of the power to grant immunity, the authority
to implement is lodged elsewhere. The authority to choose the individual to whom
immunity would be granted is a constituent part of the process and is essentially
an executive function. Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[63] is instructive on this point:

The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the
prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision to forego prosecution of
a person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate
renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of
having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the
State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise, will
probably elude the long arm of the law. Whether or not the delicate power should be
exercised, who should be extended the privilege, the timing of its grant, are
questions addressed solely to the sound judgment of the prosecution. The power to
prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary
right to decide whom not to prosecute.

Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.[64] This provision requires that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material
points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.

In Mapa v. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, it was held that these

immunity statutes are not a bonanza from government. Those given this privilege
paid a high price for it; the surrender of their right to remain silent. These laws
should, therefore, be given a liberal interpretation

WAIVER
The right against self-incrimination may be waived, either directly
or by a failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is certain and unequivocal and
intelligently made. Thus, the accused who takes the witness stand voluntarily and
offers testimony in his behalf may be cross-examined and asked incriminating
questions on any matter he testified to on direct examination

In People v. Judge Ayson, supra., the Supreme Court said: In fine, a

person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged
with its commission has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or
producing evidence, to wit:
(i) Before the case is filed in Court [or with the public
prosecutor, for preliminary investigation], but after having been taken into
custody
or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on being
interrogated by the police:
the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof,
not to be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
which vitiates the free will;
and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected and
inadmissible;
and
(ii) After the case is filed in Court:
to refuse to be a witness; not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to
him by such refusal; to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross-examination;
and
while testifying, to refuse to answer a specific question the answer to which tends
to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted.