Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Villaflor Vs Summers - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lustica
    110 views1 page
    Petitioner Villaflor was charged with adultery and ordered to undergo a physical examination to determine if she was pregnant. She refused on the basis that this violated her constitutional right against self-incrimination. The court held that the constitutional guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination is limited to prohibiting compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. An ocular inspection of the body is permissible. The purpose of criminal law is to purge the community of law violators, not protect the guilty. No rule should embarrass determining the truth, and evidence of physical facts cannot be detrimental except to acquit the guilty.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Villaflor vs Summers_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?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner Villaflor was charged with adultery and ordered to undergo a physical examination to determine if she was pregnant. She refused on the basis that this violated her constitutional right against self-incrimination. The court held that the constitutional guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination is limited to prohibiting compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. An ocular inspection of the body is permissible. The purpose of criminal law is to purge the community of law violators, not protect the guilty. No rule should embarrass determining the truth, and evidence of physical facts cannot be detrimental except to acquit the guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    110 views1 page

    Villaflor Vs Summers - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lustica
    Petitioner Villaflor was charged with adultery and ordered to undergo a physical examination to determine if she was pregnant. She refused on the basis that this violated her constitutional right against self-incrimination. The court held that the constitutional guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination is limited to prohibiting compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. An ocular inspection of the body is permissible. The purpose of criminal law is to purge the community of law violators, not protect the guilty. No rule should embarrass determining the truth, and evidence of physical facts cannot be detrimental except to acquit the guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Villaflor vs.

    Summers Case Digest


    0

    Facts:

    Petitioner Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery. The trial court, upon
    motion of the assistant fiscal, ordered her to submit to physical examination to
    determine if she was pregnant or not. Villaflor 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:

    Whether 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 providing that no
    person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

    Held:

    No. 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.

    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 purge 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 intended
    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. (Villaflor vs. Summers, G.R. No.
    16444, September 8, 1920)

    You might also like