PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BARTOLOME y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191726 , February 6, 2012.

DOCTRINE: The constitutional right against self-incrimination is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a person, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. The taking of photographs of an accused, even against his will, for purposes of identification does not violate this right.

FACTS

1. Joselito Bartolome was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide.
2. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the victim’s body bore bite marks.
3. The trial court, upon motion of the prosecution, ordered the accused to undergo dental examination and for dental impressions to be taken from him for comparison with the bite marks on the victim.
4. The accused objected, invoking his right against self-incrimination under Section 17, Article III of the Constitution .
5. The trial court denied his objection and compelled him to submit to the dental examination. The dental impressions were taken and presented as evidence.
6. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bartolome of the crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
7. Before the Supreme Court, Bartolome argued that the taking of his dental impressions violated his right against self-incrimination.

ISSUE

Whether or not the compulsory taking of the accused’s dental impressions violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

RULING

NO. The compulsory taking of dental impressions from the accused does not violate the right against self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the constitutional right against self-incrimination is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused, whether in the form of testimony, confessions, or admissions. It is testimonial compulsion that is prohibited.

The Court explained the distinction:
* The right applies to testimonial evidencei.e., evidence where the accused is compelled to disclose his knowledge of the facts of the case or to share his thoughts, beliefs, or conclusions.
* The right does not apply to physical or real evidencei.e., evidence derived from the body of the accused, such as fingerprints, footprints, paraffin tests, blood samples, hair samples, or dental impressions. These are not “communications” or “testimony” but physical characteristics that exist independently of the accused’s will.

In this case, the dental impressions were taken as a form of real or physical evidence, akin to fingerprinting. The accused was not compelled to be a witness against himself by providing testimony or a communication. He was merely required to provide a physical characteristic of his body for identification and comparison purposes. The evidence was the physical structure of his teeth, not any testimonial act.

Therefore, the trial court did not err in compelling the accused to submit to the dental examination and in admitting the dental impressions as evidence. The right against self-incrimination was not violated.