FACTS:         A petition for a writ of prohibition was filed by Francisco Beltran against Judge Felix Samson and Fiscal Francisco Jose, complaining that the respondent judge ordered him to appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting from the latter.

The order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or not it is he who wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified.

The fiscal under section 1687 of the Administrative Code, and the proper judge, upon motion of the fiscal, may compel witnesses to be present at the investigation of any crime or misdemeanor. But this power must be exercised without prejudice to the constitutional rights of persons cited to appear.

The petitioner refused to perform what the fiscal demanded and seeks refuge in the constitutional provision contained in the Jones Law and incorporated in General Orders, No. 58, which reads as follows: "Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

ISSUE:           Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner constitutes evidence against self-incrimination

RULING:      YES. Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states.

Here the witness is compelled to perform a positive, testimonial act, to write and give a specimen of his handwriting for the purpose of comparison; something not yet in existence, and it is precisely sought to compel the petitioner to make, prepare, or produce by this means, creating therefore an evidence which may seriously incriminate him.