No person shall be

compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Section 17.

THE

RIGHT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Self-incrimination
The giving of testimony which will likely
subject one to criminal prosecution.(MerriamWebster)

Availability
Availablenotonlyincriminalcases,butalsoinciviland
administrativeproceeding.
EFFECTS OF IMMUNITY STATUTES
1. Use immunity prohibitsuseofwitnesscompelled

testimonyanditsfruitsinanymannerinconnection
withthecriminalprosecutionofthewitness
2. Transactional immunity-grantsimmunitytothe
witnessfromprosecutionforanoffensetowhichhis
compelledtestimonyrelates.

GALMAN VS PALMARAN
138 SCRA 294
RULING:

PD1886grantsonlytheuse of immunity but not

transactional immunity.
Itisbeyonddisputethatthesaidlawbelongtothefirsttype
of immunitystatutes. Itgrantsmerelyimmunityfromuseof
statement given before the board , but not immunity from
prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof .Merely
testifying and / or producing evidence do not render the
witness immune from prosecution notwithstanding his
invocation of the right of self-incrimination. He is merely
saved from the use against him of such statement and
nothingmore.

Stated otherwise he still runs the risk of being

prosecutedevenifhesetsuphisrightsagainstselfincrimination. The dictates of fair play , which is the
hallmark of due process, demands that private
respondents should have been informed of their
rights to remain silent and warned that any and all
statementstobegivenbythemmaybeusedagainst
them.This,theyweredenied,underthepretensethat
they are not entitled to it and that the board has no
obligationtosoinformthem.

The Scope of the RIGHTAGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION

The right against self-incrimination covers testimonial

compulsiononlyandthecompulsiontoproducerealor
physicalevidenceusingthebodyoftheaccused.(The
kernel of the right)
Theprohibitionofcompellingamaninacriminalcourt

tobeawitnessagainsthimselfisaprohibitionofthe
use of physical and moral compulsion to extort
communicationsfromhim,notanexclusionofhisbody
asevidencewhenitmaymaterial.(Justice Holmes)

The right to self incrimination is

availablenotonlyincriminalcases,butalsoinciviland
administrative proceedings but unlike in criminal cases
where the accused could not be presented by the
prosecutionandhisrightnottotakethewitnessstandis
absolute, an adverse party in a civil or administrative
cases may be presented by the other party but could
refuse to answer only if the question propounded calls
foranincriminatoryanswer.

Bagadiong v. Gonzales, 94 SCRA 906 (1979)

RULING:
Thereisnolegalimpedimentforapartytocallanyof
theadversepartiestobehiswitness,asclearlyprovided
inSection6,Rule132oftheRulesofCourt.
It is (only) in a criminal case where the accused
may not be compelled to testify. But while the
constitutionalguarantyagainstself-incriminationprotectsa
person in ALL types of cases, said privilege, in
proceedings other than a criminal case against him who
invokes it, is consideredan option to refuse to answer
incriminatingquestion,andnot a prohibition of inquiry.

Asubstancetakenfromthebodyandtestedforgonorrheain
arapecase.
US v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil 145
Ruling:
Thecourtheldthatthetakingofasubstancefromhisbody
wasnotaviolationofthesaidright.Hewasneithercompelled
to make any admissions or to answer any questions. The
substancewastakenfromhisbodywithouthisobjectionand
was examined by competent medical authority.
Theprohibitionofself-incriminationintheBillofRightsisa
prohibitionoftheuseofphysicalormoralcompulsiontoextort
communicationsfromhim,andnotanexclusionofhisbodyas
evidence,whenitmaybematerial.Itwouldbethesameasif
theoffenderapprehendedwasathiefandtheobjectstolenby
himmaybeusedasevidenceagainsthim.

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

SECTION 18. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

(1)No person shall be detained solely

by reason of his political beliefs

and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any
form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
- denotes the a condition enforced,
compulsoryserviceofonetoanotherorthe
conditionofonewhoiscompelledbyforce,
coercion, or imprisonment and against his
will,tolaborforanother,whetherheispaid
ornot.
(ACLARACION VS GATMAITAN)

FORMS:
a. Involuntary Servitude
. b. Slavery, referstothestatusorconditionofa
personoverwhomanyorallofthepowersattachingto
therightofownershipareexercised.
c.Peonage
-aconditionofenforcedservitudebywhichtheservitor
is restrained of his liberty and compelled the labor in
liquidationinsomedebtorobligation,realorpretended,
againsthiswill.(LawDictionary)

GENERAL RULE:Involuntaryservitudeinanyformshallnotexist.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted;
2. Service in Defense of the State asprovidedin Sec. 4, Art. II:
TheprimedutyoftheGovernmentistoserveandprotectthe
people.TheGovernmentmaycalluponthepeopletodefendthe
Stateand,inthefulfilmentthereof,allcitizensmayberequired,
underconditionsprovidedbylaw,torenderpersonal,militaryor
civilservice.(People vs Zosa 38 O.G. 1676, G.R. No. L45892, 13 July 1938)
3. Naval (Merchant Marine) EnlistmentCompulsionofSailorsin
MerchantVesselstocarryouttheircontracts.
4. Posse ComitatusLatinforpowerofthecommunityorpower
ofthecounty.
5. Return to work order in industries affected with public
interest.(Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs. Gotamco
Sawmills)

CauncavsSalazar
Anemploymentagency,regardlessoftheamountitmay

advancetoprospectiveemployeeormaid,hasabsolutelyno
powertocurtailherfreedomofmovement.Thefactthatno
physicalforcehasbeenexertedtokeepherinthehouseof
therespondentdoesnotmakelessrealthedeprivationof
herpersonalfreedomofmovement,freedomtotransferfrom
oneplacetoanotherfreedomtochooseonesresidence.
Forcing a housemaid to still work for the employer
because she has been paid her salaries up to the end
of the year, even though she wants to leave already,
violates her right against involuntary servitude

People v. Zosa(38O.G.1676,G.R.No.L-45892,13July
1938),wheretwoindividualsrefusedtoconscriptionforvarious
reasons.
Ruling:
TheNationalDefenseLaw,insofarasitestablishescompulsory
militaryservice,doesnotgoagainstthisconstitutionalprovision
butis,onthecontrary,infaithfulcompliancetherewith.Theduty
of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed
exceptthroughanarmy.Toleavetheorganizationofanarmyto
the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the
Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who
volunteertoenlisttherein.
Theright of the Government to require compulsory military
service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and
is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and
property of the citizen.

Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs.

Gotamco Sawmills
RULING:
It does not offend against the constitutional inhibition prescribing
involuntaryservitude.
Anemployeeenteringintoacontactofemploymentaftersaidlaw
went to into effect, voluntary accepts among other conditions,
thoseprescribedin saidSection19,amongwhichistheimplied
condition that when any dispute between an the employer or
landlordandtheemployee,tenantorlaborerhasbeensubmitted
to the Court of Industrial relations for settlement or arbitration,
pursuance to the provisions of this act, and pending award for
decision by it, the employee tenant or laborer shall not strike or
walk out of his employment when so enjoined by the court after
hearing and when public interest so requires, and if he has
alreadydonesothat

he shall forthwith return to it upon order of the court,

which shall be issued only after hearing when public
interestsorequiresorwhenthedisputecannot,inits
opinion,bepromptlydecidedorsettled.
Thevoluntariness of theemployeesentering into
such contract of employment- he has a free choice
between entering to it or not- with such an implied
conditions negatives the possibility of involuntary
servitudeensuing.

Publicduty-Intheproperadministrationofjustice,theCourt,
underitscoercivepower,compelthestenographerto
transcribethestenographicnotes
ACLARACION V. GATMAITAN, 64 SCRA 131
Ruling:
Court stenographer who had resigned from the government
becompelledtotranscribehernotesunderpainofcontempt
without violating her right against involuntary servitude. The
testimony was taken while she was still in the government
and as such, it was her obligation to transcribe the same,
having received her salary for the day when the testimony
wastaken.

IMBONG v OCHOA
INRELATIONTOINVOLUNTARYSERTIVUDE