Beltran v.

Samson
GR. No. 32025 – September 23, 1929
J. Romualdez

Topic: Rule of Admissibility – Object (Real) Evidence

Doctrine: 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. Such writing is
similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. The Court even noted that this is
even more serious given that producing a handwriting sample is tantamount to producing an inexistent
evidence in the first place.

Petitioners: Francisco Beltran

Respondents: Felix Samson (Judge, Second Judicial District), Francisco Jose (Fiscal of Isabela)

Case Summary: Beltran was being compelled by the respondents to produce his handwriting, which
would then be used to compare to some falsified documents. Beltran filed for a writ of prohibition
arguing that his constitutional right is being trampled on. The SC ruled in favor of Beltran stating that
the act of compelling the latter to produce his handwriting is tantamount to him being a witness against
himself. In this case, he would be producing evidence that may later on be used to prove his
involvement in a crime. (See Doctrine)

Facts:
 Judge Samson ordered Beltran to appear before Fiscal Jose to take dictation in his own
handwriting. The handwriting was to be used to determine whether or not he was the one who
wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified. Note: No case was yet to be filed against
Beltran. This was really just for an investigation.
 The respondents (Samson, Jose) argues that Beltran is not entitled to the remedy applied for (writ
of prohibition) because the order is based on the provisions of section 1687 of the Administrative
Code and on the doctrine of past cases (People v. Badilla, US v. Tan Teng, US v. Ong Siu Hong,
etc.)

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the Judge may compel Beltran to submit his handwriting sample [NO]
 It is true that the fiscal and a judge, pursuant to section 1687, Administrative Code, may compel
witnesses to be present at the investigation of any crime, but this power must be exercised
without prejudice to the witness’ constitutional rights. Beltran is citing the constitutional
provision under the Jones Law and incorporated in General Order No. 58 (Criminal Procedure).
 [Originally in Spanish] Paragraph 3, Section 3, Jones law reads: “Nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.” As to the scope of being a “witness against
himself,” the court provides that it is not limited precisely to testimony but extends to all giving
or furnishing of evidence.
o “Hence, there is the well-established doctrine that the constitutional inhibition is directed
not merely to giving of oral testimony, but 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.”
 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. The court
believes that the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's
possession. The Court further noted that Beltran was being compelled even before a criminal
action was filed against him.
 o Wigmore: “It follows that the production of documents or chattels by a in response to a
subpoena, or to a motion to order production, or to other form of process treating him
as a witness, may be refused under the protection of the privilege; and this is universally
conceded.”
 The Court said that what is being asked of Beltran (giving his handwriting sample) is actually
even more serious than just producing a document or a chattel because here the witness is
compelled to write and create evidence which does not exist, and which may identify him as the
falsifier. Thus, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Beltran.
 The Court also mentioned that since Beltran is a municipal treasurer anyway, it should not be a
difficult to obtain genuine specimens of his handwriting. But even supposing it is impossible to
obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein, that is no reason
for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution.

Ruling: Wherefore, we find the present action well taken, and it is ordered that the respondents and those
under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down
dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison.