Emerteria Villaflor, petitioner vs. Ricardo Summers, sheriff of the City of Manila G.R. No.

16
%acts &etitioner Villaflor 'as char(ed 'ith the crime of adultery. )he trial *ud(e ordered the petitioner to su+*ect herself into physical e,amination to test 'hether or not she 'as pre(nant to determine the crime of adultery +ein( char(ed to her. -erein petitioner refused to such physical e,amination interposin( the defense that such e,amination 'as a violation of her constitutional ri(hts a(ainst self.incrimination. /ssue0 12N the physical e,amination 'as a violation of the petitioner3s constitutional ri(hts a(ainst self. incrimination4 Rulin(0 No. /t is not a violation of her constitutional ri(hts. )he rule that the constitutional (uaranty, that no person shall +e compelled in any criminal case to +e a 'itness a(ainst himself, is limited to a pro+ation a(ainst compulsory testimonial self.incrimination. )he constitutional limitation is simply a prohi+ition a(ainst le(al process to e,tract from the defendant3s o'n lips, a(ainst his 'ill, an admission of his (uilt. Criminal procedure, the rules of evidence and constitutional provisions are provided not to protect the (uilty +ut to protect the innocent. No rule is intended to +e so ri(id as to frustrate the administration of *ustice in its endeavor to ascertain the truth. No accused person should +e afraid of the use of any method 'hich 'ill tend to esta+lish the truth. /t is a reasona+le presumption that in an e,amination +y reputa+le and disinterested physicians 'ith due care 'ithout usin( violence and not to em+arrass the patient is permitted. -ence, an ocular inspection of the +ody of the accused is permissi+le.

, Sept. !, 1"#$