WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

> The right against self-incrimination covers testimonial compulsion only  and  the  compulsion  to  produce  real  or  physical  evidence using the body of the accused

> Physical or moral compulsion to extort communication
 

WITH WHAT KIND OF TESTIMONY OR INSTANCES CAN THE RIGHT BE INVOKED?

> It applies to commutative testimony and not mechanical testimony

> Commutative  testimony  involves  the  use  of  intelligence  on  the part  of  the  accused  or  witness.    Corrorarily,  on  cases  on  self-incrimination,  the  following  are  permissible—substance  from  the body, morphine from mouth, put on pants, physical exam, wallet, picture  taking,  etc.    The  following  on  the  other  hand  are  not permissible—handwriting,  signature,  and  similar  incidents  which
involve the use of intelligence.

SUPPOSE  THAT  THERE  IS  A  HOLE  IN  A  DOOR  TO  WHICH  IF  IT  IS FOUND OUT THAT THE HAND OF THE ACCUSED FITS THE HOLE, HE IS MOST PROBABLE GUILTY OF THE ACCUSATION.  CAN HE INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

> No,  what  is  being  asked  of  him  is  mechanical  in  nature.    The inserting of his hand into the hole will not involve intelligence on his part to fulfill the task.
 

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

> The  right  cannot  be  invoked  when  the  State  has  the  rights  to inspect documents under its police power, such as documents of corporations.
 

ON WHAT KIND OF PROCEEDINGS CAN THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BE INVOKED?

> The right against self-incrimination can be invoked in all proceedings instituted by the government
 

WHAT  IS  THE  RATIONALE  FOR  PROTECTING  THE  RIGHT  AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

1.    FOR  HUMANITARIAN  REASONS—to  prevent  the  State  with  all  its coercive  powers  from  extracting  testimony  that  may  convict  the accused
2.    FOR  PRACTICAL  REASONS—the  accused  is  likely  to  commit perjury if he were compelled to testify against himself
 

SUPPOSE  THAT  X  WAS  A  WITNESS  IN  A  JUDICIAL  PROCEEDING.  THE  COUNSEL  ASKED  HIM  ABOUT  HIS  WHEREABOUTS  DURING  A CERTAIN DATE.  X WAS ACTUALLY TOGETHER WITH A WOMAN IN A MOTEL  DURING  THAT  DATE.    REVEALING  HIS  WHEREABOUTS WOULD RESULT TO A DOMESTIC TURBULENCE.  CAN X RIGHTFULLY INVOKE HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

> X cannot invoke the right.  He can only invoke the right if there is only  a  possibility  of  criminal  prosecution  but  not  in  cases  of possible embarrassment.
 

WHO MAY INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND WHEN CAN SUCH PERSON INVOKE THE RIGHT?

> An ordinary witness may invoke the right but he may only do so as each incriminating question is asked

> The accused himself may invoke the right, but unlike the ordinary witness, he  may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. 

> But  once  the  accused  waives  his  right  and  chooses  to  testify  on his own behalf, he may be cross-examined on matters covered in his  direct  examination.    He  cannot  refuse  to  answer  questions
during cross-examination by claiming that the answer that he will give could incriminate him for the crime he is being charged.

> However,  if  the  question  during  cross-examination  relates  to  a crime different from that which he was charged, he can still invoke the right and refuse to answer.
 

CAN AN ACCUSED OR WITNESS INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IF HE IS ASKED ABOUT PAST CRIMINALITY?

> It depends

> If he can still be prosecuted for it, questions about the past criminal liability are still covered by the  protection against self-incrimination

> But if he cannot anymore be prosecuted for it anymore, he cannot invoke the right
 

SUPPOSE X WAS A WITNESS ASKED ABOUT BEING CHARGED WITH PERJURY  TWO  YEARS  AGO.    HE  INVOKES  HIS  RIGHT  AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  CAN THIS BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM?

> It depends.  If in the prior charge of perjury against him, the case has already been terminated through his acquittal, conviction, or dismissal of the complaint, he couldn't invoke the right anymore. 
But  if  it  is  the  case  that  he  could  still  be  charged  with  this  past criminality, then he could invoke said right.
 

SUPPOSE   X   WAS   A   WITNESS   ASKED   ABOUT   BEING   A   PAID WITNESS  IN  THE  PAST.    X  REFUSED  TO  ANSWER  INVOKING  THE RIGHT  AGAINST  SELF-INCRIMINATION.    CAN  THIS  BE  TAKEN AGAINST X?

> Again, it depends.  If he could still be charged for rendering false testimony, then he could invoke the right.  If he cannot anymore be charged for past criminality, then it could not invoke the right.
 

X ACCUSED WAS ASKED TO BE A HOSTILE WITNESS.  HE REFUSED TO DO SO.  CAN THIS BE TAKEN AGAINST X?

> No, X cannot be prejudiced whatsoever as a result of his refusal to be  a  hostile  witness.    To  prejudice  X  as  a  result  of  his  refusal would  render  his  right  against  self-incrimination  useless  and
nugatory.