Pr 714a; (July, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 714-A; July 26, 1937
MARIA BERMUDEZ, complainant, vs. LEODEGARIO D. CASTILLO, respondent.
FACTS
In an administrative case against respondent Leodegario D. Castillo, he presented six letters (Exhibits 32-37) allegedly written by complainant Maria Bermudez to support his defense. Bermudez denied authorship. She admitted only that three other letters (Exhibits 38-40) were in her handwriting. Respondent, believing these three were insufficient for handwriting comparison, requested the investigator to compel Bermudez to copy Exhibits 32-37 in her presence to obtain new specimens. Bermudez, invoking her constitutional right against self-incrimination, refused. The investigator upheld her refusal. Respondent then petitioned the court to order the investigator and Solicitor-General to compel Bermudez to furnish the handwriting specimens.
ISSUE
Whether the complainant, who has voluntarily taken the stand and testified, can be compelled to provide handwriting specimens for comparison during cross-examination, or whether such compulsion violates her right against self-incrimination.
RULING
No, the complainant cannot be compelled. The right against self-incrimination under Article III, Section 1(18) of the Constitution applies to all cases—criminal, civil, or administrative. By testifying under oath and denying authorship of the disputed letters, Bermudez exposed herself to potential perjury charges if subsequent handwriting evidence proved her denial false. Compelling her to write for comparison would force her to provide evidence that could incriminate her for perjury. The court cited the precedent in Beltran vs. Samson and Jose, which prohibited compelling a person to write for handwriting comparison to avoid self-incrimination. While a witness who voluntarily testifies generally waives the privilege and may be cross-examined, including being asked to write to contradict prior testimony, this case is distinguished because the compelled act would directly furnish evidence for a potential criminal prosecution (perjury) against her. Thus, her invocation of the privilege was timely and proper, and the investigator correctly sustained her objection.
AI Generated by Armztrong.