BOR_RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION Flashcards
Provision
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution) (1990, 1992, 1998, 2006 BAR
Is this limited to testimonial compulsion?
This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial compulsion, but this has since been extended to any evidence “communicative in nature” acquired under circumstances of duress. (People v. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, 30 Sept. 1987)
Summ: communicative in nature
Give the scope of the prohibition.
What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness–NOT the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.
How about substance emitted from the body of the accused, can it be received in evidence?
Substance emitted from the body of the accused may be received as evidence in prosecution for acts of lasciviousness.
How about morphine forced out of the mouth of the accused, can it be used in evidence against him?
Morphine forced out of the mouth of the accused may also be used as evidence against him
To what extent is the right available?
The right is available in: (C-C-I-A-O)
1. Criminal cases;
2. Civil cases;
3. Impeachment;
4. Administrative cases;
5. Other legislative investigations that possess a criminal or penal aspect.
What is the effect is the right is violated out of court?
Say, by the police, then the testimony, as already noted, is not admissible under the exclusionary rule.
What if it is violated by the court itself?
All its proceedings are null and void, and it is as if no judgment has been rendered.
When is a question incriminating?
A question tends to incriminate when the answer of the accused or the witness would establish a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence to prove the commission of a crime by the accused or the witness.
Can the RASI be waived?
The privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.
When should the right be claimed?
The privilege against self-incrimination can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually addressed to the witness.
Right against Self-Incrimination of an Accused vs. Right against Self-Incrimination of a Witness
Accused: Can refuse to take the witness stand altogether by invoking the right against self-incrimination.
Ordinary witness: Cannot refuse to take the witness stand; can only refuse to answer specific questions which would incriminate him in the commission of an offense
Can RASI be invoked in re-enactment of a crime
A person who is made to re-enact a crime may rightfully invoke his privilege against self incrimination, because by his conduct of acting out how the crime was supposedly committed, he thereby practically confesses his guilt by action which is as eloquent, if not more so, than words. (People v. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, 30 Sept. 1987
Is Handwritten testimony covered by the right
against self- incrimination?
Handwritten testimony is covered by the right
against self- incrimination.
Since the provision prohibits compulsory testimonial incrimination, it does not matter whether the testimony is taken by oral or written. Writing is not purely a mechanical act because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. The purpose of the privilege is to avoid and prohibit thereby the repetition and recurrence of compelling a person, in a criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. (Bermudez v. Castillo,
Is the RASI applicable to juridical persons?
No. “it would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they have been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.” (Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Corporation v. PCG)
