Consti II case digest:FRANCISCO BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. FELIX SAMSON, Judge of the Second Judicial District, and FRANCISCO JOSE, Provincial Fiscal of Isabela, respondents.

Right Against Self Incrimination

Scope and Coverage

G.R. No. 32025           September 23, 1929

FACTS:

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition, wherein the petitioner complains that the respondent judge ordered him to appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting from the latter.

The order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or not it is he who wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an order requiring to write so that his handwriting may be validated documentary evidence is considered self-incrimination.

RULING:

Yes. In the case at bar, it is more serious than that of compelling the production of documents or chattels, because here the witness is compelled to write and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which does not exist, and which may identify him as the falsifier.

An order requiring the accused to write so that his handwriting may be validated with the documentary evidence is covered by the constitutional proscription against self-incrimination.

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.

The case at bar is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. And as to such production of documents or chattels by a person may be refused.

For the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.

Wherefore, we find the present action well taken, and it is ordered that the respondents and those under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison.