Right Against Self-incrimination | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Right Against Self-Incrimination

(Article III, Section 17, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines)

Constitutional Basis:

The right against self-incrimination is enshrined in Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which states:

"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

This provision protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves in any criminal, civil, administrative, or legislative proceeding. It is rooted in the principle that the State must prove the guilt of an accused without resorting to coercion or compelling self-incrimination.

Scope and Coverage

1. Applicability in Criminal Proceedings:

   • The right against self-incrimination primarily applies to criminal cases. The accused cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence that could incriminate him. This protects the accused from being placed in a situation where he might be forced to choose between lying (and thus committing perjury) or confessing guilt.
   • If the accused chooses to testify, however, he waives this right with respect to matters on which he testifies. He may then be cross-examined on these matters.
   • The protection applies from the moment a person becomes a suspect or is subjected to custodial investigation, continuing through trial and other legal proceedings.

2. Custodial Investigation:

   • During custodial investigation, under Section 12(1) of the Constitution, an individual must be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. This supplements the right against self-incrimination, ensuring that individuals cannot be compelled to admit guilt through coerced confessions.
   • In the absence of these rights being observed (such as failure to provide a lawyer), any admission made during custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against the accused.

3. Non-criminal Proceedings:

   • Although primarily a protection in criminal cases, the right against self-incrimination also applies to civil, administrative, or legislative proceedings, but with limitations. In these proceedings, a person may refuse to answer specific questions that may tend to incriminate them in a criminal case.
   • For witnesses in non-criminal proceedings (including civil, administrative, or legislative hearings), the right may only be invoked on a question-by-question basis. The witness cannot refuse to testify entirely but may refuse to answer specific questions that might tend to incriminate them.

4. Legislative Inquiries:

   • Inquiries in aid of legislation conducted by Congress (Senate or House of Representatives) can compel a witness to testify, but the witness retains the right to refuse to answer questions that would self-incriminate.
   • Contempt or other penalties cannot be imposed on a witness invoking the right, provided there is reasonable ground to fear self-incrimination.
   • Congress has no power to grant immunity, but it may request the President or the Department of Justice to grant statutory immunity to a witness, thus compelling testimony without the risk of prosecution.

Exceptions and Limitations

1. Compulsory Production of Physical Evidence:

   • The right against self-incrimination does not extend to the production of physical evidence, such as fingerprints, handwriting samples, or photographs. A person may be compelled to provide non-testimonial evidence, provided it does not require mental processes or disclosure of incriminating information.
   • The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in cases like People v. Olvis and Villaflor v. Summers, held that the right against self-incrimination applies to testimonial evidence and not to physical or mechanical acts.

2. Waiver of the Right:

   • The right against self-incrimination can be waived, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, when an accused voluntarily takes the stand in his defense, he opens himself up to cross-examination on the matters he testifies to.
   • In such cases, the waiver is partial and limited to the subject matter of the testimony. The accused does not waive the right with respect to questions outside the scope of his testimony.

3. Corporations and Other Entities:

   • The right against self-incrimination is a personal right and applies only to natural persons, not to juridical entities like corporations or partnerships. Corporate officers, employees, or representatives may not invoke the right on behalf of the corporation, though they may invoke it to protect themselves personally.

Related Concepts and Jurisprudence

1. Right to Remain Silent and Right to Counsel:

   • The right against self-incrimination is closely related to the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during custodial investigation (Art. III, Sec. 12). Both rights aim to protect the accused from being compelled to provide information that could be used against them.

2. Immunity Statutes:

   • Immunity statutes provide a way to compel testimony while protecting the individual from prosecution. Under Presidential Decree No. 749 and Section 18 of Rule 119, a witness who is granted immunity may be compelled to testify, with the guarantee that such testimony will not be used in a criminal prosecution against them.

3. Privilege against Self-incrimination and the Miranda Doctrine:

   • The Miranda Doctrine reinforces the right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations. The accused must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel, as part of the procedure ensuring that any confession or admission is made voluntarily.

Key Philippine Cases

1. Chavez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 108180, February 7, 1995):

   • This case clarified that the right against self-incrimination can be invoked not only by the accused but also by witnesses in legislative and judicial proceedings, as long as there is a clear possibility that the answer may lead to criminal liability.

2. People v. Olvis (G.R. No. 71092, September 30, 1987):

   • The Supreme Court ruled that the taking of physical evidence, such as photographs or fingerprints, is not covered by the privilege against self-incrimination because these are physical acts, not testimonial in nature.

3. Villaflor v. Summers (G.R. No. 16444, February 22, 1919):

   • The court held that compelling the accused to submit to physical examination for medical purposes does not violate the right against self-incrimination, as it does not involve any mental process or testimonial compulsion.

4. People v. Ayson (G.R. No. L-6789, April 6, 1988):

   • The court reiterated that the right against self-incrimination is limited to testimonial evidence. Acts that are non-communicative in nature, such as providing physical evidence or performing physical acts, do not fall under the protection of the right.

Conclusion:

The right against self-incrimination in the Philippines protects an individual from being forced to provide testimonial evidence that could lead to criminal liability. While it is strongest in criminal cases, it applies with some limitations to civil, administrative, and legislative proceedings. The protection does not extend to the production of physical evidence or non-testimonial acts, and it can be waived by the individual if they choose to testify on their own behalf. In various cases, the Supreme Court has reinforced this right, ensuring that individuals cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves through testimony, while recognizing that certain physical acts do not fall under this constitutional protection.