Right against self-incrimination

1. X, the accused, was called by the prosecution as the first witness to testify for the government. X refused
to take the stand invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that
X may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege only as each question, requiring an
incriminatory answer is put to him.
Can the court order X to testify? Explain. (1996, #13)

Answer:
No, the court cannot order X to testify because he is the accused and he is exempt from being
compelled to be a witness against himself. If he were an ordinary witness, not an accused, he could be
ordered to testify and he could claim the privilege against self-incrimination only as each question
requiring an incriminatory answer is put to him.

2. At the homicide trial, the prosecution proposed that accused Joey undergo a series of paraffin test to
determine whether he fired his service pistol at the time the victim, Lyn, was shot to death. The defense objected on
the ground that Joey’s submission of his hands for paraffin test, or the inspection of any part of his body for that
matter, would violate his right against self-incrimination.
a) How would you rule on the objection?

Answer:
The objection should be overruled. Submission to the paraffin test is not a violation of the right
against self-incrimination because it involves only an examination of a part of the body. What violates the
right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion.

b) Is the result of the paraffin test admissible in evidence? (1994, #8)

Answer:
The result of the paraffin test is admissible in evidence although it is not conclusive and is not the
only evidence that should be considered.

3. Raulo, accused of falsification of a public document, testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination, he
was asked to take dictation in his own writing for the purpose of comparison. He refused.
May he be compelled to take the dictation? Explain (1988, # 18)

Answer:
Yes, since Raulo voluntarily testified in his own behalf, he is subject to cross-examination on
matters covered by direct examination. Whenever a defendant testifying in his own behalf, denied that a
certain writing or signature is in his own hand, he may on cross-examination be compelled to write in
open court for the purpose of comparison.

4. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extra-judicial confession (1997, #15)

Answer:
An illegally obtained extra-judicial confession nullifies the intrinsic validity of the confession and
renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Alternative Answer:

This provides that the constitutional right of the accused to protect himself against self-
incrimination because of the police denominated atmosphere.