EVIDENCE 1

Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

Beltran v. Samson
September 23, 1929 | J. Romualdez

Petitioner(s): Francisco Beltran

Respondent(s): Felix Samson, Francisco Jose

Doctrine: For the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one who is
compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting,
for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): sulat na
FACTS: Beltran filed a writ of prohibition against the order of Judge Samson which required him to
appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting from the latter. Beltran argued
that such was a violation of his right to be a witness against himself

HELD: The constitutional right against self-incrimination is not limited to declarations, but also prohibits
compelling people to be “witnesses” against themselves. It is not limited to testimony, but all kinds of
giving or furnishing evidence. A defendant being asked to demonstrate his handwriting upon cross-
examination, after denying a piece of writing is his, does not come within the privilege, but that principle
does not apply in this case. In this case, there is no trial, but merely a preliminary investigation. Beltran is
essentially being asked to create incriminating evidence against himself, before the information has even
been filed.

FACTS
● Judge Samson ordered Francisco Beltran to appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in
his own handwriting from the latter, for the purpose of comparing Beltran’s handwriting and
determining whether Beltran was the one who falsified the documents subject of the action. .
● Beltran filed a petition for prohibition against the judge’s order, but Judge Samson opposed,
arguing that his order was allowed under Sec 1687 of the Administrative Code.
○ Sec 1687 allows the judge and fiscal to compel witnesses to be present at the
investigation of any crime or misdemeanor, subject to the constitutional right against self-
incrimination.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N Judge Samson’s order violates Beltran’s right to self-incrimination -> YES
● The constitutional right against self-incrimination is not limited to declarations, but also prohibits
compelling people to be “witnesses” against themselves. It is not limited to testimony, but all kinds
of giving or furnishing evidence.
○ It is immaterial that the witness is protected by one Constitution from 'testifying,' or by
another from 'furnishing evidence,' or by another from 'giving evidence,' or by still another
from 'being a witness.' These various phrasings have a common conception, in respect to
the form of the protected disclosure.
● In a long line of cases, it has been held that whenever a defendant, at the trial of his case,
testifying in his own behalf, denies that a certain writing or signature is in his own hand, he may
on cross-examination be compelled to write in open court in order that the jury may be able to
compare his handwriting with the one in question. But this does not apply to this case.
○ What is involved in this case is not a defendant on trial, but merely an investigation
before the actual filing of the information. Moreover, the defendants in the cases
aforecited acted voluntarily; here, Beltran did not.
○ Even in the case of Sprouse v. Commissioner, one of the cases cited in support of this
position, the court ruled that the defendant had the legal right to refuse to write, and could
not be compelled to write.

Dizon | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

● It is true that Wigmore states that compelling a defendant to produce his handwriting does not
come within the privilege against self-incrimination. “Requiring him to make specimens of
handwriting is no more than requiring him to move his body.”
○ However, it is clear that in this case, 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 of intelligence and attention;
○ In the case at bar, writing means that Beltran is to furnish a means to determine whether
or not he is the falsifier.
● This case is more analogous to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. And
to this, Wigmore states that such may be refused under the protection of the privilege for it is akin
to treating the defendant like a witness..
● In fact, the present case is more serious than compelling the production of documents, because
here the defendant, rather than simply being asked to produce incriminating evidence, is being
asked to actually create the evidence, which did not previously exist.
○ “Still no line can be drawn short of any process which treats him as a witness; because in
virtue of it he would be at any time liable to make oath to the identity or authenticity or
origin of the articles produced." [Wigmore]
● If anything, the fiscal should not have to resort to compelling Beltran to produce handwriting.
Beltran is a municipal treasurer, so it should not be difficult to find copies of his handwriting in
official records.
○ Even if it were impossible to find such copies, that is not an excuse for trouncing upon
Beltran’s constitutional rights.

RULING: Prohibition granted.

(remove this part if there are no separate opinions)

DISSENTING / CONCURRING / SEPARATE OPINION

Justice Writer
● Discussion of dissent. No need to restate the facts / issues, just put in the essential points that the
justice provided
● Highlight the differences between the separate opinion and the ponencia if possible

Dizon | A2022
September 19, 2020