Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

Compelled in Any Criminal Case To Be A Witness Against Himself."

Uploaded by

Rostum Agapito

The defendants were accused of kidnapping Felix Punsalan. Under Article 483 of the Penal Code, failing to provide information about the victim's whereabouts or prove they released him results in a harsher punishment. The defendants argued this violates their right against self-incrimination. The court agreed, finding that disclosing where the victim was taken or showing he was freed could be used as a confession, which would force self-incrimination. The prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling assistance or considering silence as proof against the accused.

Copyright:

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

Compelled in Any Criminal Case To Be A Witness Against Himself."

Uploaded by

Rostum Agapito
47 views2 pages
The defendants were accused of kidnapping Felix Punsalan. Under Article 483 of the Penal Code, failing to provide information about the victim's whereabouts or prove they released him results in a harsher punishment. The defendants argued this violates their right against self-incrimination. The court agreed, finding that disclosing where the victim was taken or showing he was freed could be used as a confession, which would force self-incrimination. The prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling assistance or considering silence as proof against the accused.

Original Description:

digest

Original Title

US v. Navarro

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 defendants were accused of kidnapping Felix Punsalan. Under Article 483 of the Penal Code, failing to provide information about the victim's whereabouts or prove they released him results in a harsher punishment. The defendants argued this violates their right against self-incrimination. The court agreed, finding that disclosing where the victim was taken or showing he was freed could be used as a confession, which would force self-incrimination. The prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling assistance or considering silence as proof against the accused.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
47 views2 pages

Compelled in Any Criminal Case To Be A Witness Against Himself."

Uploaded by

Rostum Agapito
The defendants were accused of kidnapping Felix Punsalan. Under Article 483 of the Penal Code, failing to provide information about the victim's whereabouts or prove they released him results in a harsher punishment. The defendants argued this violates their right against self-incrimination. The court agreed, finding that disclosing where the victim was taken or showing he was freed could be used as a confession, which would force self-incrimination. The prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling assistance or considering silence as proof against the accused.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

US v.

Navarro

FACTS:

The defendants, Baldomero Navarro, Marcelo de Leon, and Fidel Feliciano, armed with revolvers
and daggers, went one night to the house of one Felix Punsalan (Punsalan), and by force and
violence kidnapped Punsalan, without, up to the date of this information, having given any
information as to his whereabouts or having proven that they set him at liberty.

With 3 witnesses testifying that the kidnapping indeed happened, the lower court rendered
judgment condemning each one of the defendants, to life imprisonment and payment of the
costs of prosecution. However, the defendant appealed.

Article 481 of the Penal Code provides that a private person who shall lock up or detain another,
or in any way deprive him of his liberty shall be punished with the penalty of prision mayor. The
second paragraph of article 483 provides that one who illegally detains another and fails to give
information concerning his whereabouts, or does not prove that he set him at liberty, shall be
punished with cadena temporal in its maximum degree to life imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel for the defendants argued that the provisions of the law has the effect of
forcing a defendant to become a witness in his own behalf or to take a much severer punishment.
The burden is put upon him of giving evidence if he desires to lessen the penalty, or, in other
words, of incriminating himself, for the very statement of the whereabouts of the victim or the
proof that the defendant set him at liberty amounts to a confession that the defendant unlawfully
detained the person. So the evidence necessary to clear the defendant, under article 483 of the
Penal Code, would have the effect of convincing him under article 481. It is claimed that such
practice is illegal, since section 5 of the Philippine Bill provides that ". . . no person shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants' rights against self-incrimination were violated. (YES)

HELD: Yes. Rights against self-incrimination were violated.

The Right Against Self-Incrimination was established on the grounds of public policy and
humanity - of policy, because if the party were required to testify, it would place the witness under
the strongest temptation to commit the crime of perjury, and of humanity, because it would
prevent the extorting of confessions by duress.

Under the present system, the information must charge the accused with acts committed by him
prior to the filing of the information and which of themselves constitute an offense against the
law. The Government can not charge a man with one of the necessary elements of an offense
and trust to his making out the rest by availing himself of his right to leave the entire burden of
prosecuting on the prosecution from beginning to end.
If the disclosure thus made would be capable of being used against him as a confession of crime,
or an admission of facts tending to prove the commission of an offense, such disclosure would
be an accusation against himself.

In the present case, if the defendant disclosed the whereabouts of the person taken, or shows
that he was given his liberty, this disclosure may be used to obtain a conviction under article 481
of the Penal Code.

It is the duty of the prosecution, in order to convict one of a crime, to produce evidence showing
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and the accused can not be called upon either by express words
or acts to assist in the production of such evidence; nor should his silence be taken as proof
against him. He has a right to rely on the presumption of innocence until the prosecution proves
him guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged.

You might also like