Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Villaflor vs. Summers

    Uploaded by

    Aname Barredo
    66 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that requiring an accused woman in an adultery case to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While compelling the exposure of one's body can be seen as undignified, the public interest in properly administering justice and determining the truth is of greater importance. Allowing medical examinations is a reasonable way to establish facts without relying on testimony alone. The examination need not be overly invasive and could be conducted by a doctor of the same sex as the accused.

    Original Description:

    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
    The Supreme Court ruled that requiring an accused woman in an adultery case to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While compelling the exposure of one's body can be seen as undignified, the public interest in properly administering justice and determining the truth is of greater importance. Allowing medical examinations is a reasonable way to establish facts without relying on testimony alone. The examination need not be overly invasive and could be conducted by a doctor of the same sex as the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Villaflor vs. Summers

    Uploaded by

    Aname Barredo
    The Supreme Court ruled that requiring an accused woman in an adultery case to submit to a medical examination to determine if she was pregnant did not violate her right against self-incrimination. While compelling the exposure of one's body can be seen as undignified, the public interest in properly administering justice and determining the truth is of greater importance. Allowing medical examinations is a reasonable way to establish facts without relying on testimony alone. The examination need not be overly invasive and could be conducted by a doctor of the same sex as the accused.

    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 G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920 41 Phil.

    62 (1920)

    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: Whether the order to the accused to submit her body to the examination of one or two
    competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant is a violation of her constitutional right against self-
    incrimination.

    Held: No, 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. 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.

    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 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.

    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. “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.

    You might also like