Scribd
Upload
40 views2 pages

US Vs Tan Teng

Tan Teng was accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. After the assault, the girl was found to have gonorrhea. Tan Teng was examined by police and found to have gonorrhea. At trial, Tan Teng argued that evidence of the examination showing he had gonorrhea should not be allowed as it violated his right against self-incrimination. The court ruled that the examination did not violate this right, as Tan Teng was not compelled to testify against himself, but rather his body itself was examined as physical evidence. The goal of preventing self-incrimination is to ban forced confessions, not prevent courts from examining a defendant's body for identity or as proof.

Uploaded by

Lastimoso Anthony
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views2 pages

US Vs Tan Teng

Tan Teng was accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. After the assault, the girl was found to have gonorrhea. Tan Teng was examined by police and found to have gonorrhea. At trial, Tan Teng argued that evidence of the examination showing he had gonorrhea should not be allowed as it violated his right against self-incrimination. The court ruled that the examination did not violate this right, as Tan Teng was not compelled to testify against himself, but rather his body itself was examined as physical evidence. The goal of preventing self-incrimination is to ban forced confessions, not prevent courts from examining a defendant's body for identity or as proof.

Uploaded by

Lastimoso Anthony
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

(US vs Tan Teng, G.R. No.

7081, September 7, 1912)


Facts :
Oliva Pacomio, a 7-year-old girl, was found to have the sexual disease gonorrhea,
as revealed by her sister. After taking a bath on the morning of September 15,
1910, Oliva told her sister that Chinaman Tan Teng followed her into her room
and asked for some face powder, which she gave him. He then used some of the
powder on his private parts before throwing her to the ground and laying his
private parts on top of hers for a brief period of time.

The sister started looking for the Chinese man right away. A group of Chinese
people had gathered. Oliva was asked to find out who had mistreated her. At first,
Tan Teng wasn't there. When he finally showed up, Oliva immediately recognized
him as the man who had attempted to assault her.

Tan Teng was detained after this information, escorted to the police station,
where he was stripped of his clothes and examined. The officer who examined the
defendant swore that gonorrhea, a venereal illness, was manifest on every part of
the defendant's body. The police officer took a sample of the substance coming
from the defendant's body and gave it to the Bureau of Science so that it could be
examined scientifically. The outcome of the examination revealed that the
defendant had gonorrhea.

The defendant argued throughout the trial that the findings of the scientific
examination of the substance obtained from his body at or near the time he was
apprehended by the Bureau of Science were not admissible in evidence as
evidence of the fact that he had gonorrhea. Considering that the defendant would
have to testify against himself if the evidence had been admitted.

Tan Teng was convicted of the rape offence by the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether the substance taken from Tan Teng, which indicates that he has gonorrhea, cannot be used
as evidence against Tan Teng on the ground that it is violative of the constitutional injunction against
self-incrimination.

RULING:
A person may not be forced to testify against themselves, as stated in Section 5 of
the Philippine Bill, and this ban merely forbids the use of judicial process to force
the defendant to admit guilt against his will from his own lips. The major goal of
the Philippine Bill's provision is to outlaw the practice of subjecting detainees to
forced confessions or declarations implicating them in criminal activity either
prior to trial or after a detainee has been found guilty.

The approach that the appellant is arguing for would prevent courts from even
looking into a defendant's fact for the purpose of revealing his identity. There is
no way that the ban under debate could be applied in such a way. Because the
accused is not called as a witness and the defendant is not required to fulfill his
testimonial responsibilities, such a physical examination of the body by the court
or witnesses does not violate the privilege guaranteed by the Philippine Bill. The
accused's body itself, not testimony, is the proof that was gathered in this manner
from him.

The simple fact that an object located on the accused's body was examined
appears to violate the rule in issue no more than would the introduction of stolen
property obtained from the person of a thief. The accused was not required to
admit anything or respond to any questions.

You might also like