Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 245 views

    People V Banihit

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    The document discusses a case where a man was convicted of raping his nine-year-old niece. It describes the medical examination of the victim that showed injuries and an infection. The court ruled that medically examining the accused to see if he had the same infection would not violate his right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Banihit

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    245 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where a man was convicted of raping his nine-year-old niece. It describes the medical examination of the victim that showed injuries and an infection. The court ruled that medically examining the accused to see if he had the same infection would not violate his right against self-incrimination.

    Original Description:

    Section 17: Right against self-incremination

    Original Title

    People v Banihit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a man was convicted of raping his nine-year-old niece. It describes the medical examination of the victim that showed injuries and an infection. The court ruled that medically examining the accused to see if he had the same infection would not violate his right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    245 views2 pages

    People V Banihit

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    The document discusses a case where a man was convicted of raping his nine-year-old niece. It describes the medical examination of the victim that showed injuries and an infection. The court ruled that medically examining the accused to see if he had the same infection would not violate his right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Section 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

    PEOPLE V. ROBERTO BANIHIT


    G.R No. 132045, August 25, 2000

    Facts: The accused Roberto Banihit was convicted for the crime of
    rape for his niece Glaiza Mae Banihit who is a nine years old. After the
    incident Glaiza did not tell her mother what happened. The next evening,
    September 8, 1997, Glaiza could not sleep because she felt pain in her
    vagina. She had to tell her mother what she felt. Lucita examined Glaizas
    vagina and saw that it was reddish and found a pus-like discharge.

    Lucita grilled her daughter to tell her what happened, and Glaiza said she was
    raped by her uncle. Since Lucita had no money, she told Glaiza that they will
    just go to the hospital to have her treated the following week. On September
    16, 1997, Lucita brought Glaiza to the Regional Hospital, but they were
    advised to go to the City Health Office. There, Glaiza was examined by Dr.
    Danilo Ledesma, Medico-Legal Officer, who stated in his findings that he
    found Glaizas hymen to be "swollen with a healing deep laceration at 3 oclock
    position corresponding to the face of a watch, edges congested, edematous,
    bleeds on slight manipulation". Further, Glaiza was found positive for
    gonorrhea which Dr. Ledesma confided to Lucita.

    An Information was filed against accused-appellant on September 18, 1997.


    After he pleaded not guilty, the trial of the case ensued.

    At the hearing of October 10, 1997, the prosecution moved that accused-
    appellant be medically examined to determine whether he was likewise
    afflicted with the venereal disease.

    Issue: WON the medical examination would violate the constitutional


    right of the accused against self-incrimination.

    Held: The trial court ruled that the examination would not violate
    accused-appellants right against self-incrimination. Parenthetically, it is true
    that the constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination
    proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications
    from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may
    be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the
    accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding
    hand of counsel is not required. The essence of the right against self-
    incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against
    himself through a testimonial act. Hence, it has been held that an accused
    may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance
    taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he was suffering
    from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim.

    You might also like