THE UNITED STATES v.
TAN TENG (Renzo) self-incrimination - NO
September 7, 1912 | Johnson, J. | Admissible Evidence
PETITIONER: The United States
RESPONDENTS: Tan Teng
SUMMARY: Oliva was a seven year-old girl living in her sister’s house in
Manila. Teng was one of the Chinamen who often visited their house to gamble.
One day Oliva was followed into her room by Teng, by which he asked for face
powder. When Oliva gave him some, he immediately threw her down and
violated her. A couple of weeks later Oliva’s sister found out that Oliva was
suffering from gonorrhea and an investigation ensued. Oliva positively identified
Teng and he was charged and convicted of rape. One of the evidences used was
a body sample from his private parts, which the medical experts concluded that
Teng was also suffering from gonorrhea. The issue is whether or not the
substance taken from Teng violated his constitutional right against self-
incrimination. As such, the evidence would be inadmissible in court if proven
such. The Court ruled that it was not against this privilege because the privilege
only covers oral examinations before and during trial. The taking of a body
substance from his person does not violate such privilege. Teng is guilty of rape.
DOCTRINE: The taking of a body sample for the purposes of evidence to be
presented in court does not violate the privilege of self-incrimination.
FACTS:
1. Tan Teng was convicted of the crime of rape. The victim was Oliva
Pacomio, a seven year-old girl. Oliva was staying at her sister’s house in the
city of Manila.
2. On September 15, a number of Chinamen visited the house to gamble, as
they often do. Oliva took a bath and went to her room and Tan Teng
followed her inside. Teng asked for face powder and Oliva handed him
some. Afterwards, he put some on his private parts and began to violate her.
3. A couple of weeks passed and the sister of Oliva found out that Oliva had
been suffering from gonorrhea. An investigation ensued. A number of
Chinamen were rounded up and Oliva positively identified Teng.
4. Teng was arrested and was medically tested. Results found that Teng was
suffering from gonorrhea as well.
5. Given the testimony from Oliva and the evidence presented, the lower court
convicted Teng of the crime of rape.
6.
ISSUES:
1. WoN the substance taken from Teng violated his constitutional right against
RULING: Teng is guilty of rape.
RATIO:
1. Teng objected to Oliva’s testimony due to her tender years and that it
should not be given credit, but the lower court ruled that she had sufficient
intelligence and discernment for the court to accept it with full faith and
credit.
2. Medical experts agreed that the disease could have been communicated
from Teng to Oliva through his acts.
3. (Related to Consti) Teng also contended that the substance taken from his
body for the scientific examination was not admissible evidence because
such evidence would compel the defendant to testify against himself.
Important to note is what Judge Lobingier said:
a. “The accused was not compelled to make any admissions or
answer any questions, and the mere fact that an object found on his
person was examined: seems no more to infringe the rule invoked,
than would the introduction in evidence of stolen property take
nfrom the person of a thief”
4. The lower court made another analogy that:
a. “if the clothing which he wore, by reason of blood stains or
otherwise, had furnished evidence of the commission of a crime,
there certainly could have been no objection to taking such for the
purpose of using the same as proof”
5. The main purpose of Sec. 5 of the Philippine Bill (Constitution back then) is
that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, which
is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant’s
own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt
6. The main purpose of this provision is to prohibit oral examination of
prisoners before trial, or upon trial, for the purpose of extorting unwilling
confessions or declarations implicating them in the commission of a crime.
7. Clearly the inspection of the bodily features by the court of by witnesses
cannot violate the privilege granted by this provision.
8. Furthermore, in cases of rape, it is difficult to secure positive and direct
proof because these are generally committed in secret. This is why the
Court allows circumstantial evidence to be used as conclusive proof leading
to guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Given the corroborative evidence presented, Teng is guilty of the crime of
rape.