Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Villaflor v. Summers

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    The Supreme Court ruled that ordering the accused to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While individuals have a right to control their own bodies, the public interest in orderly justice administration is superior. Reasonable medical examinations conducted without force or embarrassment are permissible to establish the truth in criminal cases. The writ of habeas corpus sought by the accused was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Villaflor v. Summers

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    78 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that ordering the accused to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While individuals have a right to control their own bodies, the public interest in orderly justice administration is superior. Reasonable medical examinations conducted without force or embarrassment are permissible to establish the truth in criminal cases. The writ of habeas corpus sought by the accused was denied.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that ordering the accused to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While individuals have a right to control their own bodies, the public interest in orderly justice administration is superior. Reasonable medical examinations conducted without force or embarrassment are permissible to establish the truth in criminal cases. The writ of habeas corpus sought by the accused was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Villaflor v. Summers

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    The Supreme Court ruled that ordering the accused to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While individuals have a right to control their own bodies, the public interest in orderly justice administration is superior. Reasonable medical examinations conducted without force or embarrassment are permissible to establish the truth in criminal cases. The writ of habeas corpus sought by the accused was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Criminal Procedure 2E

    TOPIC Rights of the Accused – Right to counsel/presence in every stage DATE


    of the proceedings
    September 8, 1920

    CASE TITLE Villaflor v. Summers GR NO

    16444

    DOCTRINE 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. The
    corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible.
    The proviso is that torture of force shall be avoided. Whether facts fall within or without the rule
    with its corollary and proviso must, of course, be decided as cases arise.

    FACTS The facts are not dispute. In a criminal case pending before the Court of First Instance of the city
    of Manila, Emeteria Villaflor and Florentino Souingco are charged with the crime of adultery. On
    this case coming on for trial before the Hon. Pedro Concepcion, Judge of First Instance, upon the
    petitioner of the assistant fiscal for the city of Manila, the court ordered the defendant Emeteria
    Villaflor, nor become the petitioner herein, to submit her body to the examination of one or two
    competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. The accused refused to obey the
    order on the ground that such examination of her person was a violation of the constitutional
    provision relating to self-incrimination. Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was
    ordered to be committed to Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical examination
    required by the court.

    ISSUE/S Whether the order to the accused to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent
    doctors to determine if she was pregnant is a violation of her constitutional right against self-
    incrimination.

    RATIO
    No, The rule that 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. The corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular inspection of the body of the
    accused is permissible. It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by reputable and
    disinterested physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarass the patient
    any more than is absolutely necessary. Indeed, no objection to the physical examination being made
    by the family doctor of the accused or by doctor of the same sex can be seen.

    As we view it, the object of having criminal laws is to purge the community of persons who violate
    the laws to the great prejudice of their fellow men. Criminal procedure, the rules of evidence, and
    constitutional provisions, are then provided, not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.
    No rule is intemended to be so rigid as to embarrass the administration of justice in its endeavor to

    1
    Criminal Procedure 2E
    ascertain the truth. No accused person should be afraid of the use of any method which will tend to
    establish the truth.

    Obviously a stirring plea can be made showing that under the due process of law cause of the
    Constitution every person has a natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own
    body. It is extremely abhorrent to one’s sense of decency and propriety to have the decide that such
    inviolability of the person, particularly of a woman, can be invaded by exposure to another’s gaze.
    “To compel any one, and especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit to the touch of a
    stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass.” Conceded, and yet, as
    well suggested by the same court, even superior to the complete immunity of a person to be let
    alone is the inherent which the public has in the orderly administration of justice. Unfortunately, all
    too frequently the modesty of witnesses is shocked by forcing them to answer, without any mental
    evasion, questions which are put to them; and such a tendency to degrade the witness in public
    estimation does not exempt him from the duty of disclosure. Between a sacrifice of the
    ascertainment of truth to personal considerations, between a disregard of the public welfare for
    refined notions of delicacy, law and justice cannot hesitate.

    RULING Although the order of the trial judge, acceding to the request of the assistant fiscal for an
    examination of the person of the defendant by physicians was phrased in absolute terms, it should,
    nevertheless, be understood as subject to the limitations herein mentioned, and therefore legal. The
    writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby denied. The costs shall be taxed against the petitioner.
    So ordered.

    NOTES

    You might also like