Pascual, Jr. v Board of Medical Examiners [L-25018 May 26, 1969]

Constitutional Law II - Self-Incrimination Clause

Facts:

Petitioner, Arsenio Pascual, Jr., was charged by Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton for alleged immorality or malpractice through an administrative case. In such administrative case, at the initial hearing the complainant’s (Gatbontons’) counsel announced to present Pascual, Jr, the one who was charged in the case, to be his first witness. Thereupon, Pascual, Jr objected invoking his constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself, or his right against self-incrimination. And so, the Board of Examiners, herein respondents, said that Pascual, Jr be once again called upon to testify at the next hearing unless he secure a restraining order from a competent authority

Contention arose in this case as Petitioner Pascual, Jr alleges that he cannot be compelled to take the witness stand in an administrative case proceeding wherein he is the one charged in the case and that the Board of Examiners failed to respect his constitutional right against self-incrimination

Issue:

Whether or not Petitioner Pascual, Jr can be compelled to testify in an administrative case proceeding wherein he is the one charged in said case thereby making him a witness to testify against his own self

Ruling:

No

The Court ruled that Petitioner Pascual, Jr could not, consistent with one’s constitutional right against self-incrimination, be compelled or forced by Respondent Board of Examiners to testify against himself. It is the right of a defendant to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand – with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free genuine will. Moreover, the fact of it being an administrative proceeding does not change the fact that Petitioner Pascual still has his constitutional right against self-incrimination because it extends to administrative proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Dept. of National Defense [G.R. 187587 June 5, 2013]

Constitutional Law II -  Right to Information Facts: President Carlos P. Garcia, through Proclamation No. 423, reserved parcels of land in Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Rizal, and Pasay for military reservation known as Fort Bonifacio. Later on, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208 and 2476 (amending Proclamation No. 243) which provided for the exclusions of areas for military reservation such as Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village. Moreover, President Marcos inserted “P.S. includes Western Bicutan” at the very end and did not include such portion in the publication of said amending Proclamation. Contention arose in this case as to the Petitioners herein case and the Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, Inc (WBLOAI) stating that their lots, falling within Western Bicutan, is already excluded from the military reservation (and so it is no longer a public land) as per President Marcos’ Proclamations. They used the “P.S. includes Western Bic...
Read more

Aznar v Commission on Elections [G.R. 83820 May 25, 1990]

Constitutional Law II - Citizenship Facts: Aznar, the Provincial Chairman of Cebu PDP-Laban, filed a petition to disqualify Emilio “Lito” Osmeña, respondent, when he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province on the ground that the latter is not a Filipino citizen but rather an American Citizen. Aznar presented the following to show that Lito is an American citizen: 1.       Application for Alien Registration Form 2. Alien Certificate of Registration 3. Pernit to Re-enter the Philippines 4. Immigration Certificate of Clearance On the other hand, Lito alleged that he is a Filipino citizen: 1.       He is the legitimate child of a Filipino 2. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport 3. His continuous residency in the Philippines since his birth 4. His being a registered voter in the Philippines Contention arose in this case as to the citizenship of Lito and if...
Read more