Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25018 May 26, 1969
ARSENIO PASCUAL, JR., petitioner-appellee,
vs.
BOARD O MEDICAL E!AMINERS, "#$%o&'#&(-a%%#))a&(, SAL*ADOR
GATBONTON a&' ENRI+UETA GATBONTON, ,&(#"-#&o"$-a%%#))a&($.
Conrado B. Enriquez for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A.
Torres and Solicitor Pedro A. Rairez for respondent-appellant.
Bausa, Apil and Suarez for inter!enors-appellants.
ERNANDO, J.:
The broad, all-embracin s!eep of the self-incrimination clause,
"
!henever
appropriatel# invo$ed, has been accorded due reconition b# this Court ever since
the adoption of the Constitution.
%
Bermude& v. Castillo,
'
decided in "('), !as *uite
cateorical. As !e there stated+ ,This Court is of the opinion that in order that the
constitutional provision under consideration ma# prove to be a real protection and not
a dead letter, it must be iven a liberal and broad interpretation favorable to the
person invo$in it., As phrased b# -ustice .aurel in his concurrin opinion+ ,The
provision, as doubtless it !as desined, !ould be construed !ith the utmost liberalit#
in favor of the riht of the individual intended to be served.,
/
Even more relevant, considerin the precise point at issue, is the recent case of
Ca"al !. #apunan,
0
!here it !as held that a respondent in an administrative
proceedin under the Anti-1raft .a!
2
cannot be re*uired to ta$e the !itness stand at
the instance of the complainant. 3o it must be in this case, !here petitioner !as
sustained b# the lo!er court in his plea that he could not be compelled to be the first
!itness of the complainants, he bein the part# proceeded aainst in an
administrative chare for malpractice. That !as a correct decision4 !e affirm it on
appeal.
Arsenio Pascual, -r., petitioner-appellee, filed on 5ebruar# ", "(20 !ith the Court of
5irst 6nstance of Manila an action for prohibition !ith pra#er for preliminar# in7unction
aainst the Board of Medical E8aminers, no! respondent-appellant. 6t !as alleed
therein that at the initial hearin of an administrative case
)
for alleed immoralit#,
counsel for complainants announced that he !ould present as his first !itness herein
petitioner-appellee, !ho !as the respondent in such malpractice chare. Thereupon,
petitioner-appellee, throuh counsel, made of record his ob7ection, rel#in on the
constitutional riht to be e8empt from bein a !itness aainst himself. Respondent-
appellant, the Board of E8aminers, too$ note of such a plea, at the same time statin
that at the ne8t scheduled hearin, on 5ebruar# "%, "(20, petitioner-appellee !ould
be called upon to testif# as such !itness, unless in the meantime he could secure a
restrainin order from a competent authorit#.
Petitioner-appellee then alleed that in thus rulin to compel him to ta$e the !itness
stand, the Board of E8aminers !as uilt#, at the ver# least, of rave abuse of
discretion for failure to respect the constitutional riht aainst self-incrimination, the
administrative proceedin aainst him, !hich could result in forfeiture or loss of a
privilee, bein *uasi-criminal in character. 9ith his assertion that he !as entitled to
the relief demanded consistin of perpetuall# restrainin the respondent Board from
compellin him to testif# as !itness for his adversar# and his readiness or his
!illinness to put a bond, he pra#ed for a !rit of preliminar# in7unction and after a
hearin or trial, for a !rit of prohibition.
:n 5ebruar# (, "(20, the lo!er court ordered that a !rit of preliminar# in7unction
issue aainst the respondent Board commandin it to refrain from hearin or further
proceedin !ith such an administrative case, to a!ait the 7udicial disposition of the
matter upon petitioner-appellee postin a bond in the amount of P0;;.;;.
The ans!er of respondent Board, !hile admittin the facts stressed that it could call
petitioner-appellee to the !itness stand and interroate him, the riht aainst self-
incrimination bein available onl# !hen a *uestion callin for an incriminatin ans!er
is as$ed of a !itness. 6t further elaborated the matter in the affirmative defenses
interposed, statin that petitioner-appellee<s remed# is to ob7ect once he is in the
!itness stand, for respondent ,a plain, speed# and ade*uate remed# in the ordinar#
course of la!,, precludin the issuance of the relief souht. Respondent Board,
therefore, denied that it acted !ith rave abuse of discretion.
There !as a motion for intervention b# 3alvador 1atbonton and Enri*ueta
1atbonton, the complainants in the administrative case for malpractice aainst
petitioner-appellee, as$in that the# be allo!ed to file an ans!er as intervenors.
3uch a motion !as ranted and an ans!er in intervention !as dul# filed b# them on
March %', "(20 sustainin the po!er of respondent Board, !hich for them is limited
to compellin the !itness to ta$e the stand, to be distinuished, in their opinion, from
the po!er to compel a !itness to incriminate himself. The# li$e!ise alleed that the
riht aainst self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative hearin.
A decision !as rendered b# the lo!er court on Auust %, "(20, findin the claim of
petitioner-appellee to be !ell-founded and prohibitin respondent Board ,from
compellin the petitioner to act and testif# as a !itness for the complainant in said
investiation !ithout his consent and aainst himself., =ence this appeal both b#
respondent Board and intervenors, the 1atbontons. As noted at the outset, !e find
for the petitioner-appellee.
1
". 9e affirm the lo!er court decision on appeal as it does manifest fealt# to the
principle announced b# us in Ca"al !. #apunan.
>
6n that proceedin for certiorari and
prohibition to annul an order of -ude ?apunan, it appeared that an administrative
chare for une8plained !ealth havin been filed aainst petitioner under the Anti-
1raft Act,
(
the complainant re*uested the investiatin committee that petitioner be
ordered to ta$e the !itness stand, !hich re*uest !as ranted. @pon petitioner<s
refusal to be s!orn as such !itness, a chare for contempt !as filed aainst him in
the sala of respondent -ude. =e filed a motion to *uash and upon its denial, he
initiated this proceedin. 9e found for the petitioner in accordance !ith the !ell-
settled principle that ,the accused in a criminal case ma# refuse, not onl# to ans!er
incriminator# *uestions, but, also, to ta$e the !itness stand.,
6t !as noted in the opinion penned b# the present Chief -ustice that !hile the matter
referred to an a administrative chare of une8plained !ealth, !ith the Anti-1raft Act
authori&in the forfeiture of !hatever propert# a public officer or emplo#ee ma#
ac*uire, manifestl# out proportion to his salar# and his other la!ful income, there is
clearl# the imposition of a penalt#. The proceedin for forfeiture !hile administrative
in character thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect. The case before us is not
dissimilar4 petitioner !ould be similarl# disadvantaed. =e could suffer not the
forfeiture of propert# but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner, for
some an even reater deprivation.
To the arument that Ca"al !. #apunan could thus distinuished, it suffices to refer to
an American 3upreme Court opinion hihl# persuasive in character.
";
6n the
lanuae of -ustice Aoulas+ ,9e conclude ... that the 3elf-6ncrimination Clause of
the 5ifth Amendment has been absorbed in the 5ourteenth, that it e8tends its
protection to la!#ers as !ell as to other individuals, and that it should not be !atered
do!n b# imposin the dishonor of disbarment and the deprivation of a livelihood as a
price for assertin it., 9e reiterate that such a principle is e*uall# applicable to a
proceedin that could possibl# result in the loss of the privilee to practice the
medical profession.
%. The appeal apparentl# proceeds on the mista$en assumption b# respondent Board
and intervenors-appellants that the constitutional uarantee aainst self-incrimination
should be limited to allo!in a !itness to ob7ect to *uestions the ans!ers to !hich
could lead to a penal liabilit# bein subse*uentl# incurred. 6t is true that one aspect of
such a riht, to follo! the lanuae of another American decision,
""
is the protection
aainst ,an# disclosures !hich the !itness ma# reasonabl# apprehend could be
used in a criminal prosecution or !hich could lead to other evidence that miht be so
used., 6f that !ere all there is then it becomes diluted.la$phi%.&et
The constitutional uarantee protects as !ell the riht to silence. As far bac$ as
"(;0, !e had occasion to declare+ ,The accused has a perfect riht to remain silent
and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his uilt.,
"%
:nl# last #ear, in
Cha!ez !. Court of Appeals,
"'
spea$in throuh -ustice 3anche&, !e reaffirmed the
doctrine ane! that it is the riht of a defendant ,to foreo testimon#, to remain silent,
unless he chooses to ta$e the !itness stand B !ith undiluted, unfettered e8ercise of
his o!n free enuine !ill.,
9h# it should be thus is not difficult to discern. The constitutional uarantee, alon
!ith other rihts ranted an accused, stands for a belief that !hile crime should not
o unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable ob7ectives should
not be accomplished accordin to means or methods offensive to the hih sense of
respect accorded the human personalit#. More and more in line !ith the democratic
creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most
heinous crimes is iven due !eiht. To *uote from Chief -ustice 9arren, ,the
constitutional foundation underl#in the privilee is the respect a overnment ... must
accord to the dinit# and interit# of its citi&ens.,
"/
6t is li$e!ise of interest to note that !hile earlier decisions stressed the principle of
humanit# on !hich this riht is predicated, precludin as it does all resort to force or
compulsion, !hether ph#sical or mental, current 7udicial opinion places e*ual
emphasis on its identification !ith the riht to privac#. Thus accordin to -ustice
Aoulas+ ,The 5ifth Amendment in its 3elf-6ncrimination clause enables the citi&en to
create a &one of privac# !hich overnment ma# not force to surrender to his
detriment.,
"0
3o also !ith the observation of the late -ude 5ran$ !ho spo$e of ,a
riht to a private enclave !here he ma# lead a private life. That riht is the hallmar$
of our democrac#.,
"2
6n the liht of the above, it could thus clearl# appear that no
possible ob7ection could be leitimatel# raised aainst the correctness of the decision
no! on appeal. 9e hold that in an administrative hearin aainst a medical
practitioner for alleed malpractice, respondent Board of Medical E8aminers cannot,
consistentl# !ith the self-incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded aainst
to ta$e the !itness stand !ithout his consent.
9=ERE5:RE, the decision of the lo!er court of Auust %, "(20 is affirmed. 9ithout
pronouncement as to costs.
2