People vs.

Gallarde

Facts:

In the evening of 26 May 1997, at the house of spouses Eduardo and Elena Talan in Brgy.
Trenchera,Tayug, Pangasinan, their neighbors converged. Among them were Radel Gallarde, Francisco,
Renato, Edwin, all surnamed Fernandez, Romel Hernandez, Jaime Cabinta, Rosy Clemente, Jon Talen,
Noel Arellaga and Ramil Bargon. Idling by was Editha, 10 year old daughter of spouses Talan. After a
while, Roger stood up and invited Jaime and Gallarde to dine in the kitchen. As they partook of the meal,
Gallarde suddenly left. Jaime, too, stepped out of the kitchen to urinate. Outside the house, he chanced
upon Gallarde and Editha talking to each other. Jaime whistled at Gallarde but instead of minding him,
the latter sprinted towards the road leading to his house. Thereafter, Editha entered the kitchen and took
hold of a kerosene lamp. Jaime followed her and asked where she was going. Editha answered that she
would look for Gallarde. Soon Editha left enroute to where Gallarde fled. By 10:00 p.m., the drinking
buddies had dispersed but Jaime, Francisco, Edwin and Rose regrouped at Renato's place where they
talked and relaxed. Moments later, Roger arrived and informed them that Editha was missing. Roger
asked the group to help look for her. Elena Talan informed his uncle, Barangay Ex-kagawad Mario
Fernandez, about her daughter's disappearance. The latter, together with his son Edwin, wife Virginia and
nephew Freddie Cortez wasted no time in joining their neighbors search the houses, dikes and fields to
look for the missing child. When Jaime mentioned that Gallarde was the last person he sawtalking to
Editha, the searchers went back to the house of Gallarde. The searchers found Gallarde squatting with his
short pants at the toilet about 6 meters away from Gallarde's house; his hands and knees covered with soil.
Asked where Editha was, Gallarde replied: "I do not know, I did not do anything to her." To the question,
"where did you come from since a while ago you were not yet in this toilet?" Gallarde answered "I was
with Kiko, I was asleep in their house. One of the searchers Mario Bado, got angry and countered that
Gallarde's statement was impossible because Kiko was with him drinking. After the confrontation at the
toilet, Ex-kagawad Fernandez brought Gallarde to Brgy. Captain Felicisimo Mendoza, informing the
latter that Gallarde was the last person seen talking with the missing child. Fernandez then rejoined the
searchers. Back in the field, Virginia Fernandez tripped on a wet ground. The searchers, thereafter,
noticed disheveled grasses, and a wide hole among the disheveled grass. When Ex-kagawad Fernandez
forthwith scratched some earth aside and then Editha's hand pitted out. Fernandez screamed in terror.
Meantime, Barangay Captain Mendoza heardshouts saying: "She is here, she is now here already dead!"
Mindful of Gallarde's safety, Brgy. Captain Mendoza decided to bring Gallarde to the municipal building.
On their way though, they met policemen on board a vehicle. He flagged them down and turned over the
person of Gallarde, saying: "Here is the suspect in the disappearance of the little girl. Since you are
already here, I am giving him to you." The policemen together with Gallarde proceeded to where the
people found Editha. One of the policemen shoved more soil aside. The lifeless Editha was completely
naked when she was recovered. A picture of Gallarde was taken without any counsel present.

Gallarde was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The trial court rendered a
decision convicting Gallarde of the crime of murder only, not of the complex crime of rape with homicide
because of the lack of proof of carnal knowledge, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the late Editha Talan in the negotiated sum of P70,000.00. The trial
court rejected the photographs (Exhibits "I," "J" and "K") taken of Gallarde immediately after the incident
on the ground that "the same were taken while he was already under the mercy of the police." Gallarde
appealed his conviction to the SC

Issue:

Whether The taking of pictures of an accused violates of his constitutional right against self-
incrimination.

Held:

The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel, being a purely mechanical
act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does
not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The essence
of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against
himself through a testimonial act. Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be
compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy; and an accused may be
compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical
determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim; to
expel morphine from his mouth; to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody
footprints; and to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move
his body to enable the foregoing things to be done. (People vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025. February 17,
2000)
Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Digest

G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991

Padilla, J.:

Facts:

1. Petitioner was one of the defendants in a civil case filed by the government with the Sandiganbayan
for the alleged anomalous sale of Kokoy Romoaldez of several government corporations to the group of
Lopa, a brother-in-law of Pres. Aquino.

2. By virtue of a privilege speech made by Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to look into the transactions,
an investigation was conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa
were subpoenaed by the Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know" regarding the
"sale of thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez."

3. At the hearing, Lopa declined to testify on the ground that his testimony may "unduly prejudice"
the defendants in civil case before the Sandiganbayan.

4. Petitioner filed for a TRO and/or injunctive relief claiming that the inquiry was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Senate. He contended that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and legislative purpose. One of the defendants in the case before the Sandiganbayan,
Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for intervention. The Court granted it and required the
respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on the petition in intervention.

ISSUE: W/N the Blue Ribbon inquiry was in aid of legislation

NO.

1. There appears to be no intended legislation involved. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted
is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, it was conducted to find out whether or not
the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. Lopa had violated RA 3019 in connection with the
alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group.

2. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or
unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the Constitution. As provided therein, the investigation must
be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of
persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to
be compelled to testify against one's self.

3. The civil case was already filed in the Sandiganbayan and for the Committee to probe and inquire
into the same justiciable controversy would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial
jurisdiction that had already earlier set in. The issue sought to be investigated has already been pre-
empted by the Sandiganbayan. To allow the inquiry to continue would not only pose the possibility of
conflicting judgments between the legislative committee and a judicial tribunal.
4. Finally, a congressional committee’s right to inquire is subject to all relevant limitations placed
by the Constitution on governmental action ‘including the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights. One
of these rights is the right of an individual to against self-incrimination. The right to remain silent is
extended to respondents in administrative investigations but only if it partakes of the nature of a criminal
proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. Hence, the petitioners may not be compelled by
respondent Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it only because the inquiry is not in
aid of legislation and if pursued would be violative of the principle of separation of powers between the
legislative and the judicial departments of the government as ordained by the Constitution.
COMELEC VS. TAGLE, ET AL.

GR No.s 148948 & 148951, February 17, 2003

Facts: In connection with the May 11, 1998 elections, candidate for Mayor Florentino A. Bautista filed a
complaint against Mayor Federico Poblete et al. for vote –buying in violation of Sec 261 (a) and (b) of the
Omnibus Election Code. The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 7034-99 of the RTC of
Imus, Cavite. Subsequently, a complaint for vote-selling in violation of Sec 261 (a) of the Omnibus
Election Code was filed with the Prosecutor’s Office as witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 and the
Provincial Prosecutor in Imus, Cavite filed separate Informations for vote-selling against said witnesses.
On appeal, the COMELEC en banc declared that the witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 were
exempt from criminal prosecution pursuant to 4th paragraph of Sec 28, RA No. 6646, otherwise known as
“The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987” which grants immunity from criminal prosecution to persons who
voluntarily give information and willingly testify against those liable for vote-buying or vote-selling. The
Law Department of the COMELEC moved to dismiss the Informations against the said witnesses but the
RTC in Imus, Cavite denied the motion to dismiss.

Held: 1. One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of vote-buying and of prosecuting those
committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal liability in favor of the party whose vote was
bought. Sec 28 of RA No. 6646 concludes with the following paragraph:

The giver, offeror, the promissory as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided,
that any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly
testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from
prosecution and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were
given: Provided, further, that nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for
perjury or false testimony.

2. To avoid possible fabrication of evidence against the vote-buyers, especially by the latter’s opponents,
Congress saw it fit to warn “vote-sellers” who denounce the vote-buying that they could be liable for
perjury or false testimony should they not tell the truth.

3. The prosecution witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 are exempt from criminal prosecution for
vote-selling by virtue of the proviso in the last paragraph of Section 28, RA 6646. At the time when the
complaint for vote-selling was filed with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the respondents had
already executed sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-buying. It cannot then be
denied that they had already voluntarily given information in the vote-buying case. In fact, they willingly
testified in Crim. Case No. 7034-99.

4. The COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses
punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same. The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial
and City Prosecutors, or their respective assistants are, however, given continuing authority, as deputies
of the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses and to
prosecute the same. This authority may be revoked or withdrawn by the COMELEC anytime whenever,
in its judgment, such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the COMELEC and
to promote the common good, or when it believes that the successful prosecution of the case can be done
by the COMELEC. When the COMELEC nullified the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor, it in effect
withdrew the deputation granted by the COMELEC.