Villaflor vs. Summers
Villaflor vs. Summers
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.