CD 116. Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)

Right Against Self-incrimination
G.R. No. 16444 September 8, 1920
EMETERIA VILLAFLOR, petitioner,
vs.
RICARDO SUMMERS, sheriff of the City of Manila, respondent.
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: WON the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant, violates that portion of
the Philippine Bill of Rights and that portion of our Code of Criminal Procedure which find their origin in the Constitution
Ruling: NO.
In contradistinction to the cases above-mentioned are others which seem to us more progressive in nature. Among these can be prominently
mentioned decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of these Islands. Thus, the always forward looking jurist, Mr.
Justice Holmes, in the late case of Holt vs. United States ([1910], 218 U. S., 245), in resolving an objection based upon what he termed "an
extravagant extension of the Fifth Amendment," said: "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 when it may be
material." The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, in two decisions, has seemed to limit the protection to a prohibition against compulsory
testimonial self-incrimination.
Perhaps the best way to test the correctness of our position is to go back once more to elements and ponder on what is the prime purpose of a criminal
trial. As we view it, the object of having criminal laws is to purgue 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 ascertain the truth. No accused person
should be afraid of the use of any method which will tend to establish the truth. For instance, under the facts before us, to use torture to make the
defendant admit her guilt might only result in including her to tell a falsehood. But no evidence of physical facts can for any substantial reason be
held to be detrimental to the accused except in so far as the truth is to be avoided in order to acquit a guilty person.
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. As Mr. Justice Gray in Union Pacific Railway
Co. vs. Botsford ([1891], 141 U. S., 250) said, "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.
Fully conscious that we are resolving a most extreme case in a sense, which on first impression is a shock to one's sensibilities, we must nevertheless
enforce the constitutional provision in this jurisdiction in accord with the policy and reason thereof, undeterred by merely sentimental influences.
Once again we lay down 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. 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.
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.
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.

CD 116. Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CD 116. Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CD 116. Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right Against Self-incrimination

G.R. No. 16444 September 8, 1920

You might also like