The Right against Self-incrimination If an accused is already covered by an immunity statute, may he still validly refuse to testify invoking his right against self-incrimination? No. That is the very purpose of an immunity statute - the accused is granted some kind of immunity in exchange for his testimony so that even if in the course of his testimony he might incriminate himself, no harm can come upon him anymore. Immunity statutes are of two types, i.e., transactional immunity and the use-and-derivative- used immunity – but the first is broader in the scope of its protection. By its grant, a witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction. In contrast, by the grant of use-and-derivative-use immunity, a witness is only assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution. Immunity statutes should be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state as it is not a bonanza from the government. Those who have been granted immunity paid a high price for it – the surrender of their precious right to remain silent. (Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, 1994, En Banc [Puno])
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:51:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015