This is the for Napoles. baka di alam ibig sabihin ng The rights against of self incrimination ee... @_@ The right or the privilege against self-incrimination is the one of the established rights of any human being who is under civil, criminal or administrative investigation, whether formal or informal. This right is guaranteed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Section 12, Article III, when it strictly laid down the requirements which the government must comply with during an investigation. The rationale behind said right is stated in Section 17, Article III of the said Constitution, that – “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The said privilege against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him or her during a present or subsequent criminal case. This right enables an accused to refuse to testify at a criminal trial and privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in a present or even future criminal proceedings, for the simple reason that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. At present application, it simply means that if you want to pin down somebody, let’s say for graft and corruption, then you must get the evidence from other sources and not from the same persons themselves. In other words, you cannot force those persons to testify or answer questions which might tend to make them liable for any crime now or in the future. This right was adopted from the famous Miranda Doctrine laid down the US Supreme Court in 1966, which established rules to protect a criminal defendants privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, prior to any questioning, the persons must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the or presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. In the US, when a witness is asked a question that tends to incriminate him, he usually says “I take the Fifth.”, since this right is in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. In the Philippines, the witness will just state as we often here in Senate Investigations – “I invoke my right against self-incrimination.” The 1987 Philippine Constitution even adds more stringent requirement that the waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads: 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 obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. However, the said right has limitations, which are as follows: 1. The right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty. However, if the witness becomes an accused in a criminal case, he can altogether avoid being asked any question, by simply refusing to take the witness stand. 2. A witness may refuse to answer questions or give documentary evidence only if the answer or document would incriminate the witness, that is, if it would lead to criminal liability in any jurisdiction. 3. The right against self-incrimination may only be asserted by persons and does not protect artificial entities such as corporations. 4. The privilege does not allow a witness to refuse to answer a question because the response may expose the witness to civil liability, social disgrace, loss of status, loss of private employment or possible embarrassment. 5. A witness may not claim the privilege on the grounds that an answer or document may incriminate a third party. It may be declared only by the witness for himself. 6. The right against self-incrimination covers testimonial compulsion only, and the compulsion to produce real or physical evidence using the body of the accused. However, in the following instances this right cannot be invoked - the taking of body fluids in the body of the witness or accused such as: drug test, DNA, urine and blood sample, physical examination, measurement, picture taking, or any object taken from his body or in his possession like clothes, wallet, jewelry, etc. On the other hand, the following are not permissible—handwriting, signature, and similar incidents which involve the use of intelligence or discretion. On the basis of the above principles on the “right against self-incrimination”, then we can intelligently watch any live TV congressional investigation and decide for ourselves if the rights of those invited and questioned are being violated or not. Sometimes, it is quite disappointing for some Senators and Congressmen who are also members of the bar, to ignore the constitutional rights of their invited guests and resource persons, not in aid of legislation, but in aid of re-election. In hindsight, some of us who love tele-dramas might favor the violation of this right against self-incrimination, but please be reminded of the fact that it has been a long established foundation of any civilized society to uphold said right, for any violation thereof will lead to more dangerous repercussions that will far outweigh the commission of any crime itself.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:14:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015