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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    People v. Banihit

    Uploaded by

    LyleTherese
    The court ruled that subjecting the accused to a medical examination to determine if he had gonorrhea would not violate his right against self-incrimination. While the right against self-incrimination prohibits compelling accused to provide incriminating testimony, it does not prevent inclusion of their body as evidence. Forced medical exams that produce purely physical evidence are allowed, as opposed to testimony provided under compulsion. As the exam would produce physical evidence from his body rather than compelled speech, the accused's constitutional rights would not be violated by the examination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Banihit

    Uploaded by

    LyleTherese
    84 views1 page
    The court ruled that subjecting the accused to a medical examination to determine if he had gonorrhea would not violate his right against self-incrimination. While the right against self-incrimination prohibits compelling accused to provide incriminating testimony, it does not prevent inclusion of their body as evidence. Forced medical exams that produce purely physical evidence are allowed, as opposed to testimony provided under compulsion. As the exam would produce physical evidence from his body rather than compelled speech, the accused's constitutional rights would not be violated by the examination.

    Original Description:

    PEOPLE V. BANIHIT 339 SCTA 86

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ruled that subjecting the accused to a medical examination to determine if he had gonorrhea would not violate his right against self-incrimination. While the right against self-incrimination prohibits compelling accused to provide incriminating testimony, it does not prevent inclusion of their body as evidence. Forced medical exams that produce purely physical evidence are allowed, as opposed to testimony provided under compulsion. As the exam would produce physical evidence from his body rather than compelled speech, the accused's constitutional rights would not be violated by the examination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views1 page

    People v. Banihit

    Uploaded by

    LyleTherese
    The court ruled that subjecting the accused to a medical examination to determine if he had gonorrhea would not violate his right against self-incrimination. While the right against self-incrimination prohibits compelling accused to provide incriminating testimony, it does not prevent inclusion of their body as evidence. Forced medical exams that produce purely physical evidence are allowed, as opposed to testimony provided under compulsion. As the exam would produce physical evidence from his body rather than compelled speech, the accused's constitutional rights would not be violated by the examination.

    Copyright:

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

    [G.R. No. 132045. August 25, 2000.

    ] accused appellant’s right against self incrimination and


    directed the Warden to cause the examination of accused.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO
    BANIHIT alias "BOBBY," accused-appellant.
    The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutional right of an accused
    Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant. against self incrimination will be violated by subjecting him
    to medical examination.
    FACTS: Accused Banihit was charged, tried and convicted of
    the crime of rape, for raping his 9 year old niece. He was HELD: NO.
    sentenced to death and ordered to indemnify the victim.
    While it is true that the constitutional right of an accused
    On September 7, 1997, at around 6 o’clock in the evening, against self incrimination proscribes the use of physical or
    Lucita Banihit, Glaiza’s mother, was in her house doing the moral compulsion to extort communications from the
    laundry. Accused Banihit arrived looking for Napoleon, accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it
    accused’s older brother. Lucita told him that Napoleon was may be material. PURELY MECHANICAL acts are NOT
    not home. included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby
    speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of
    Accused appellant and Glaiza rode a motorcycle and went to counsel IS NOT required.
    a grassy lot and there Accused raped Glaiza. Glaiza did not
    tell her mother what happened. The next evening, Glaiza felt The essence of the right against self incrimination IS
    pain in her vagina. Lucita grilled her daughter to tell her TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION, that is the giving of evidence
    what happened, and Glaiza said she was raped by her uncle. against himself through testimonial act. Hence, it has been
    The following week Glaiza was examined and findings stated held that an accused MAY BE compelled to submit to
    that her hymen has laceration and Glaiza was found positive physical examination and to have a substance taken from his
    for gonorrhea. body for medical determination as to whether he was
    suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his
    An information was filed against the accused after he victim.
    pleaded not guilty, the trial of the case ensued.

    At the hearing the prosecution moved the accused appellant


    be medically examined to determine whether he was
    likewise inflicted with the venereal disease. The trial court
    ruled that ruled that the examination would NOT violate

    You might also like