G.R. No. 32025, September 23, 1929
FRANCISCO BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. FELIX SAMSON, Judge of the Second Judicial District, and FRANCISCO JOSE, Provincial Fiscal of Isabela, respondents.

FACTS

The Provincial Fiscal of Isabela, investigating an alleged falsification of documents, petitioned the court to order Francisco Beltran to appear before him and take dictation in his own handwriting. The purpose was to compare Beltran’s handwriting with the allegedly falsified documents to determine if he was the author. The respondent judge granted the fiscal’s petition and issued the corresponding order. Beltran refused to comply and filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the order violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

ISSUE

Whether compelling a person under investigation, but not yet formally charged, to furnish a specimen of his handwriting by taking dictation violates the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, ordering the respondents to desist from compelling the petitioner to take dictation for handwriting comparison.

The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, as provided in the Jones Law and incorporated in Philippine criminal procedure, is not limited to oral testimony. It extends to all forms of furnishing evidence, including the compelled performance of a positive, testimonial act. The act of writing from dictation to create a handwriting specimen for comparison is a testimonial act that falls within the scope of the privilege. The petitioner, not yet a defendant in a criminal case, cannot be compelled to create evidence that may incriminate him.

The cases cited by the respondents are distinguishable:
People v. Badilla and U.S. v. Tan Teng involved situations where the persons concerned did not object, thereby waiving the privilege.
Villaflor v. Summers (physical examination) and U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong (extraction of morphine from the mouth) did not involve compelling a person to perform a positive testimonial act to create new evidence, but rather to permit the examination or surrender of evidence already in existence.

The Court emphasized that the privilege exists to protect the innocent and must be liberally construed in favor of personal rights. Since the petitioner invoked his right, he could not be compelled to perform the act.