Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    PPL V Rondero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Simbajon
    The Supreme Court ruled that hair strands taken from the accused without consent could be admitted as evidence against him. While the Constitution prohibits compelled self-incrimination, it does not prevent inclusion of a person's body as evidence if material. However, the Court also ruled that blood-stained clothes taken from the accused's home without a search warrant were inadmissible, as they were obtained illegally in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

    Copyright:

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

    PPL V Rondero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Simbajon
    103 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that hair strands taken from the accused without consent could be admitted as evidence against him. While the Constitution prohibits compelled self-incrimination, it does not prevent inclusion of a person's body as evidence if material. However, the Court also ruled that blood-stained clothes taken from the accused's home without a search warrant were inadmissible, as they were obtained illegally in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

    Original Description:

    Ppl v Rondero Digest

    Original Title

    Ppl v Rondero Digest

    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 Supreme Court ruled that hair strands taken from the accused without consent could be admitted as evidence against him. While the Constitution prohibits compelled self-incrimination, it does not prevent inclusion of a person's body as evidence if material. However, the Court also ruled that blood-stained clothes taken from the accused's home without a search warrant were inadmissible, as they were obtained illegally in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

    Copyright:

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

    PPL V Rondero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Simbajon
    The Supreme Court ruled that hair strands taken from the accused without consent could be admitted as evidence against him. While the Constitution prohibits compelled self-incrimination, it does not prevent inclusion of a person's body as evidence if material. However, the Court also ruled that blood-stained clothes taken from the accused's home without a search warrant were inadmissible, as they were obtained illegally in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R.

    125687, December 9, 1999


    EXCLUSIONARY RULE
    ART III SECTION 3. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
    shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
    FACTS: The accused was seen by the victims father with an ice pick and washing his bloodied
    hands at the well. The 9 year old victim was later found dead and half naked with lacerations in
    her vagina but no sperm. He was convicted of homicide only. For his conviction, several
    circumstantial pieces of evidence were submitted including strands of his hair for comparison
    with the strands of hair found in the victims right hand at the scene of the crime as well as
    blood-stained undershirt and short pants taken from his house. The accused-appellant avers the
    acquisition of his hair strands without his express written consent and without the presence of his
    counsel, which, he contends is a violation of his Constitutional right against self-incrimination
    under Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution, to wit:
    Sec. 12.
    (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
    informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
    of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
    one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
    (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will
    shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
    forms of detention are prohibited.
    (3) Any confession or admission in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
    evidence against him.
    Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
    ISSUE: WON the evidence gathered, particularly accused-appellants hair strands can be
    admitted as evidence against him?
    HELD: Yes. Under the above-quoted provisions, what is actually proscribed is the use of
    physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused-appellant and not
    the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. For instance, substance emitted
    from the body of the accused may be received as evidence in prosecution for acts of
    lasciviousness and morphine forced out of the mouth of the accused may also be used as
    evidence against him. Consequently, although accused-appellant insists that hair samples were

    forcibly taken from him and submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, the hair samples may
    be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial
    compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under
    duress.
    On the other hand, the blood-stained undershirt and short pants taken from the accused are
    inadmissible in evidence. They were taken without the proper search warrant from the police
    officers. Accused-appellants wife testified that the police officers, after arresting her husband in
    their house, took the garments from the clothesline without proper authority. This was never
    rebutted by the prosecution. Under the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the fruit of the
    poisonous tree, evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other
    evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
    Simply put, accused-appellants garments, having been seized in violation of his constitutional
    right against illegal searches and seizure, are inadmissible in court as evidence.

    You might also like