US vs Tan Teng Case Digest

Facts:

The sister of Oliva Pacomio (7-year old girl) discovered that the latter was suffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. Oliva related to her sister that in the morning of the 15th of September 1910, after she took a bath, Chinaman Tan Teng followed her into her room and asked her for some face powder, which she gave him; that after using some of the face powder upon his private parts he threw her upon the floor, placing his private parts upon hers, and remained in that position for some little time. 

The sister at once put on foot an investigation to find the Chinaman. A number of Chinamen were collected together. Oliva was called upon to identify the one who had abused her. Tan Teng was not present at first. Later he arrived and Oliva identified him at once as the one who had attempted to violate her.

Upon this information Tan Teng was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his clothing and examined. The policeman who examined the defendant swore that his body bore every sign of the fact that he was suffering from the venereal disease known as gonorrhea. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a scientific analysis made of the same. The result of the examination showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea.

During the trial, the defendant contended that the result of the scientific examination made by the Bureau of Science of the substance taken from his body, at or about the time he was arrested, was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea. That to admit such evidence was to compel the defendant to testify against himself. 

The trial court found Tan Teng guilty of the crime of rape.

Issue:

Whether the substance taken from Tan Teng, which indicates that he has gonorrhea, cannot be used as evidence against Tan Teng on the ground that it is violative of the constitutional injunction against self-incrimination.

Held:

The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine Bill that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt. The main purpose of the provision of the Philippine Bill is to prohibit compulsory oral examination of prisoners before trial, or upon trial, for the purpose of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations implicating them in the commission of a crime.

The doctrine contended for by appellant would prohibit courts from looking at the fact of a defendant even, for the purpose of disclosing his identity. Such an application of the prohibition under discussion certainly could not be permitted. Such an inspection of the bodily features by the court or by witnesses, can not violate the privilege granted under the Philippine Bill, because it does not call upon the accused as a witness — it does not call upon the defendant for his testimonial responsibility. The evidence obtained in this way from the accused, is not testimony but his body itself.

The accused was not compelled to make any admission or answer any questions, and the mere fact that an object found upon his body was examined seems no more to infringe the rule invoked than would the introduction of stolen property taken from the person of a thief. (US vs Tan Teng, G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912)