Just another mommy blogger from Asia’s Latin City

Monthly archive

November 2017 - page 2

People v Zosa; 38 O.G. 1676

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Appellants were charged with violation of the National Defense Law for refusing to register in the military service despite being required to do so. They were sentenced to imprisonment for a month and a day. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the National Defense Law violates the constitutional right against involuntary servitude. HELD: NO. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer…

Keep Reading

Galman v Pamaran; G.R. Nos. L-71208-09 and L-71212-13; 30 Aug 1985; 138 SCRA 274

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Private respondents were charged as accessories for the killing of Sen. Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman. In the course of the joint trial, the prosecution offered in evidence their individual testimonies before the Agrava Board, the ad hoc Fact Finding Board created under Presidential Decree 1886 to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing. ISSUE(S): Whether or not their testimony before the Board made private respondents immune from prosecution by virtue of their right against self-incrimination. HELD: NO. PD 1886 grants merely immunity from use of any statement give before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by…

Keep Reading

People v Tranca; G.R. No. 110357; 17 Aug 1994; 35 SCRA 455

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Appellant was charge with the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. After he was arrested in a buy-bust operation, he was made to undergo ultraviolet radiation to determine the presence of fluorescent powder dusted on the money used. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant’s right against self-incrimination was violated. HELD: NO. What is prohibited by the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness, not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. 18 Stated otherwise, it is simply a prohibition against his will, an admission…

Keep Reading

Villaflor v Summers; G.R. No. 16444; 08 Sep 1920; 41 Phil 62

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioner and her paramour were charged with the crime of adultery. The court ordered her to submit her body to examination to determine if she was pregnant or not. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the examination was a violation of petitioner’s right against self-incrimination. HELD: NO. The constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. On a proper showing and under an order of the trial court, an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. Writ of habeas…

Keep Reading

U.S. v Tan Teng; G.R. No. 7081; 07 Sep 1912; 23 Phil 145

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape. He was arrested and taken to the police station, stripped of his clothing and examined. The result of the examination showing that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea was admitted in evidence. ISSUE(S): Whether or not admitting the medical result in evidence was violative of appellant’s right against self-incrimination. HELD: NO. The prohibition against self-incrimination is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant’s own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt. The medical result does not call upon the accused as a witness – it…

Keep Reading

Alih v Castro; G.R. No. L-69401; 23 Jun 1987; 151 SCRA 279

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioners were arrested following a shootout with government soldiers after the latter raided their compound in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. They filed an action to challenge the validity of their fingerprinting, photographing and paraffin-testing. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioners’ right against self-incrimination was violated. HELD: NO. The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to 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…

Keep Reading

Pascual v Board of Medical Examiners; G.R. No. L-25018; 26 May 1969; 28 SCRA 345

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: At the initial hearing of an administrative case for malpractice against petitioner, he was presented as the first witness for the complainants. His counsel objected, invoking petitioner’s right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. Respondent Board of Examiners took note of the plea but stated that petitioner would be called upon to testify as such witness unless he could secure a restraining order from a competent authority. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the respondent in an administrative charge may not be compelled to take the witness stand. HELD: YES. The accused in a criminal case may refuse,…

Keep Reading

Chavez v CA; G.R. No. L-29169; 19 Aug 1968; 24 SCRA 663

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioner was convicted of qualified theft of a motor vehicle. During his trial, he was presented as a witness for the prosecution. His counsel objected by later submitted after being assured by the court that petitioner will not be compelled to answer any question that would incriminate him. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the accused may refuse to take the witness stand. HELD: YES. An ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand…

Keep Reading

Abadia v CA; G.R. No. 105597; 23 Sep 1994; 236 SCRA 676

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Private respondent was arrested in connection with a coup attempt and was detained for months without charges. After a charge sheet was filed against him for violations of the Articles of War, he filed a petition for habeas corpus which was dismissed on the ground that a pre-trial investigation was already ongoing. Despite finding no evidence of his direct participation in the coup, the Pre-Trial Investigative Panel recommended that he be charged with conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. He remained in detention despite all existing charges against him were later dismissed. ISSUE(S): Whether or no private…

Keep Reading

In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Wilfredo S. Sumulong-Torres; G.R. No. 122338; 25 Dec 1995; 251 SCRA 709

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Wilfredo Torres was convicted of two counts of estafa and sentenced to serve a prison term up to November 02, 2000. He was granted pardon on the condition that he will “not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.” Such conditional pardon was later cancelled on the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole after he was charged of multiple counts of estafa. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a convict who breached his conditional pardon may avail of the writ of habeas corpus. HELD: NO. Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person’s liberty…

Keep Reading

1 2 3 4 6
error: Content is protected !!
Go to Top