Our Law Corner

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 ...

Constitutional Law II - Rights of the Accused Facts: Herein petitioner, Jose Antonio Leviste, was convicted by the RTC for the crime of homicide and to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor as minimum to reclusion temporal as maximum. He then appealed his conviction and filed an urgent application for admission to bail citing his advanced age and health condition. However, the Court of Appeals denied his bail application. Contention arose here where Leviste claims that his right to bail was violated and that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his application for bail   Issue: Whether or not Leviste’s application for bail should be automatically granted   Ruling: No. The Court cited: Sec.5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides: Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. & Sec. 13. Art. II of the Constitu...