Alih vs.

Castro

~ The objection to the photographing, fingerprinting and paraffin-testing of the petitioners

deserves slight comment. The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. "The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material." People vs. Gamboa ~ As to the paraffin test to which the appellant was subjected to he raises the question, under the sixth assigned error, that it was not conducted in the presence of his lawyer. This right is afforded to any person under investigation for the commission of an offense whose confession or admission may not be ta en unless he is informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. !is right against self-incrimination is not violated by the ta ing of the paraffin test of his hands. This constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in this case. 9 "ndeed, the paraffin test proved positively that he just recently fired a gun. Again, this ind of evidence buttresses the case of the prosecution. Beltran vs. Samson and Jose ~"n the case before us, writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers# writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention# and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. BASECO vs. PCGG ~ $very corporation is a direct creature of the law and receives an individual franchise from the %tate. &ut a partnership, although is deemed to be a juridical person by grant of the %tate, becomes a juridical person through a private contract of partnership between and among the partners, without needing to register its existence with the %tate or any of its organs. 'ore importantly, the partnership (person) is a fiction of law given more for the convenience of the partners, and thus can be dissolved by the will of the partners or by the happening of an event that would constitute the termination of the contractual relationship, whereas, no corporation can be dissolved without the consent of the %tate, and only after due notice and hearing. *i ewise, the other features of the partnership, mainly mutual agency, delectus personae and unlimited liability on the part of the partners, that places a close identity between the persons of the partners and that of the partnership. This is unli e in corporate setting, where the stoc holders do not own corporate properties, have no participation in management of corporate affairs, and enjoy personal immunity from the debts and liabilities of the corporation, and where basically the corporation (is its own person,) and acts through a professional group of managers and agents called the &oard of +irectors.

People vs. Casinillo ~ That a police lineup is not encompassed in the ,onstitutional right against testimonial compulsion and the right to counsel. Thus:" an act, whether testimonial or passive, that would amount to disclosure of incriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition of the Constitution. This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. Villaflor vs. Summers ~ %ubmitting a woman for an examination to determine if she is pregnant is not encompassed in the ,onstitutional right against self-incrimination. %uch act is purely mechanical and is not a testimonial compulsion. "n a line of cases decided by the %upreme ,ourt, this constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in this case. apa! Jr. vs. Sandi"anba#an - To accommodate the need, the right against self-incrimination was stripped of its absoluteness. "mmunity statutes in varying shapes were enacted which would allow government to compel a witness to testify despite his plea of the right against self-incrimination. To insulate these statutes from the virus of unconstitutionality, a witness is given what has come to be nown as transactional or a use-derivative-use immunity.