The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination26 [Section 12, Article III, Constitution.] proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required.27 [People v. Olvis, et al., G.R. No. 71092, 154 SCRA 513 (1987)] The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.28 [People v. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 (1992); People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994); People v. Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, 9 December 1999.] Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy;29 [Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)] and an accused may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;30 [U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)] to expel morphine from his mouth;31 [U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)] to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints;32 [U.S. v. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 (1913); U.S. v. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 (1921)] and 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.33 [People v. Otadora, et al., 86 Phil. 244 (1950)]

CJ Davide, First Division, People v. Gallarde [G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000]