Case Digest: United States v. Tan Teng (G.R. No. 7081)

United States v. Tan Teng | G.R. No. 7081 | September 7, 1912 | Johnson, J. | Article III – Section 17 | 

Petitioners: The United States, plaintiff and appellee
Respondents: Tan Teng, defendant and Appellant 

Recit Ready Summary
Defendant Tan Teng was arrested for the abuse of Oliva Pacomio, a girl, seven years of age. 

In the house of Oliva Pacomio’s siz, defendant threw Oliva upon the floor, placed his private parts upon hers and remained in that position for some time. Several days later, the siz of Oliva discovered that Oliva was suffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. Oliva then related to her sister her encounter with the defendant. He was arrested, taken to the police station and stripped of his clothing. Upon examination, the policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from his body for scientific analysis. The result of the examination showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. Defendant now argues that the result of the scientific examination was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea for to admit such evidence was to compel him to testify against himself. 

The Court HELD: 

1. The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him. It is not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. 

2. An inspection of the bodily features by the court or by witnesses cannot violate the self-incrimination clause because it does not call upon the accused as a witness. The evidence obtained is NOT a testimony by his body BUT his body itself. 

3. Thus, the substance taken from the body of the accused is admissible in evidence. 

FACTS:
1. Oliva Pacomio, a girl seven years of age was staying in the house of her sister. A number of Chinamen were gambling in or near the said house. Some of the Chinamen had been in the habit of visiting the house. 

2. After taking a bath, Oliva returned to her room. Defendant followed her and asked for some face powder. After using some of the power upon his private parts, he threw Oliva upon the floor and placed his private parts upon hers. He remained in that position for some little time. 

3. Several days later, the sister of Oliva discovered that Oliva was suffering from a venereal1 disease known as gonorrhea. Oliva then related to her sister her encounter with defendant. 

4. Oliva’s sister initiated an investigation to find the Chinaman. A number of Chinamen were collected together and Olivia identified the defendant as the one who abused her. 

5. Defendant was arrested, taken to the police station, stripped of his clothing and examined. The policeman who examined defendant testified that the defendant’s body bore signs that he was suffering from gonorrhea. 

6. Policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science for scientific analysis. The result of the examination showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. 

7. The defendant contends that the result of the scientific examination was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea for to admit such evidence was to compel him to testify against himself. 

ISSUES: W/N the admission as evidence of the scientific examination of the substance taken from defendant’s body violates the prohibition against self-incrimination No 

HELD:  

1. The prohibition that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendants own lips, against his will, an admission of guilt. The main purpose of the prohibition is to prohibit compulsory oral examination of prisoners before trial, or upon trial, for the purpose of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations implicating themselves in the commission of a crime. 

2. Holt vs. US: The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him. It is not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. 

3. The substance was taken from the body of the defendant without his objection. Moreover, the accused was not compelled to make any admissions or answer to any questions. The mere fact that an object found on his person was examined does not violate the prohibition against self-incrimination (as would the introduction of stolen property taken from the person of a thief). 

4. THUS, an inspection of the bodily features by the court or by witnesses cannot violate the self-incrimination clause because it does not call upon the accused as a witness. The evidence obtained is NOT testimony by his body BUT his body itself. 

5. Evidence clearly shows that the defendant was suffering from venereal disease and that through his brutal conduct, said disease was communicated to Oliva Pacimio. 

Defendant was found guilty of indecent assault.