Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Giving urine samples under Fruit of Poisonous Tree

    Încărcat de

    Yeyen M. Evora
    136 vizualizări1 pagină
    David Gutang and three others were arrested for drug possession after a search of Gutang's home uncovered drug paraphernalia. At the police station, they were asked to provide urine samples, which tested positive for drugs. Gutang argued the samples were inadmissible since he was not represented by counsel when providing them. The Court ruled the samples were admissible, as the right to counsel only prevents compelled testimony, not inclusion of the body as evidence through simple observation or tests, like urine samples. While the right to counsel begins upon arrest, compelling non-testimonial evidence like urine samples or physical attributes does not violate this right.

    Descriere originală:

    21. Gutang v. People

    Titlu original

    21. Gutang v. People

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    David Gutang and three others were arrested for drug possession after a search of Gutang's home uncovered drug paraphernalia. At the police station, they were asked to provide urine samples, which tested positive for drugs. Gutang argued the samples were inadmissible since he was not represented by counsel when providing them. The Court ruled the samples were admissible, as the right to counsel only prevents compelled testimony, not inclusion of the body as evidence through simple observation or tests, like urine samples. While the right to counsel begins upon arrest, compelling non-testimonial evidence like urine samples or physical attributes does not violate this right.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    136 vizualizări1 pagină

    Giving urine samples under Fruit of Poisonous Tree

    Încărcat de

    Yeyen M. Evora
    David Gutang and three others were arrested for drug possession after a search of Gutang's home uncovered drug paraphernalia. At the police station, they were asked to provide urine samples, which tested positive for drugs. Gutang argued the samples were inadmissible since he was not represented by counsel when providing them. The Court ruled the samples were admissible, as the right to counsel only prevents compelled testimony, not inclusion of the body as evidence through simple observation or tests, like urine samples. While the right to counsel begins upon arrest, compelling non-testimonial evidence like urine samples or physical attributes does not violate this right.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    Case No: 21

    Subtopic: Giving urine samples under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

    GUTANG v. PEOPLE
    335 SCRA 479 (2000)

    Doctrine: The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under
    investigation for the commission of crime. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be
    waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

    However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
    communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material to
    ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation and not to unearth undisclosed facts.

    An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes


    removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done without going against
    the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

    FACTS: David Gutang, together with Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar de Venecia, Jr. was arrested
    by policemen in connection with the enforcement of a search warrant in his residence at Greenhills, San
    Juan. Several drug paraphernalia, which later tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine
    hydrochloride, were seized along with a small quantity of marijuana fruiting tops.

    The four were brought to Camp Crame and were subjected to a drug-dependency test and were asked to
    give a sample of their urine to which they complied. Their urine samples all tested positive for shabu.

    De Venecia, Jr. voluntarily submitted himself for treatment, rehabilitation and confinement. Gutang,
    Regala and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. They were found guilty of possession and use of prohibited drugs.

    Gutang argued that the urine sample is inadmissible in evidence because he had no counsel during the
    custodial investigation when it was taken. In effect, it is an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and a
    violation of the Constitution.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the urine samples taken were admissible in evidence.

    RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that it was admissible. The right to counsel begins from the time a person
    is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission of crime. Such right is
    guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

    However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
    communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material to
    ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation and not to unearth undisclosed facts.

    An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes


    removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done without going against
    the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și