Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Beltran Vs Samson

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Maglines
    The court held that ordering the defendant to write a sample of his handwriting at the direction of the prosecutor would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While writing is a physical act, it requires intelligence and attention, and in this case would compel the defendant to provide evidence about whether he was the person who falsified documents. Forcing a defendant to produce a handwriting sample is similar to forcing him to produce documents or other evidence in his possession. Upholding the defendant's constitutional privilege may allow some criminals to evade justice, but this privilege exists to protect innocent people.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Beltran Vs Samson

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Maglines
    94 views1 page
    The court held that ordering the defendant to write a sample of his handwriting at the direction of the prosecutor would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While writing is a physical act, it requires intelligence and attention, and in this case would compel the defendant to provide evidence about whether he was the person who falsified documents. Forcing a defendant to produce a handwriting sample is similar to forcing him to produce documents or other evidence in his possession. Upholding the defendant's constitutional privilege may allow some criminals to evade justice, but this privilege exists to protect innocent people.

    Original Description:

    pub corp

    Original Title

    Beltran vs Samson

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court held that ordering the defendant to write a sample of his handwriting at the direction of the prosecutor would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While writing is a physical act, it requires intelligence and attention, and in this case would compel the defendant to provide evidence about whether he was the person who falsified documents. Forcing a defendant to produce a handwriting sample is similar to forcing him to produce documents or other evidence in his possession. Upholding the defendant's constitutional privilege may allow some criminals to evade justice, but this privilege exists to protect innocent people.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views1 page

    Beltran Vs Samson

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Maglines
    The court held that ordering the defendant to write a sample of his handwriting at the direction of the prosecutor would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While writing is a physical act, it requires intelligence and attention, and in this case would compel the defendant to provide evidence about whether he was the person who falsified documents. Forcing a defendant to produce a handwriting sample is similar to forcing him to produce documents or other evidence in his possession. Upholding the defendant's constitutional privilege may allow some criminals to evade justice, but this privilege exists to protect innocent people.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE VS BELTRAN

    Facts: Beltran, as a defendant for the crime of Falsification, refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. The petitioner in this case contended that such order would be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such examination would give the prosecution evidence against him, which the latter should have gotten in the first place. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself.

    Issue: Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination.

    Held: The court ordered the respondents and those under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison. Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. Except that it is more serious, we believe the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. We say that, for the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted, the crime would go unpunished. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer, it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein, that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. It might be true that in some cases criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice, but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons.

    You might also like