Consti II case digest: ARSENIO PASCUAL, JR., petitioner-appellee, vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, respondent-appellant, SALVADOR GATBONTON and ENRIQUETA GATBONTON, intervenors-appellants.

G.R. No. L-25018               May 26, 1969

Facts:

Arsenio Pascual, Jr., petitioner-appellee, filed on February 1, 1965 with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction against the Board of Medical Examiners, now respondent-appellant. It was alleged therein that at the initial hearing of an administrative case⁷ for alleged immorality, counsel for complainants announced that he would present as his first witness herein petitioner-appellee, who was the respondent in such malpractice charge. Thereupon, petitioner-appellee, through counsel, made of record his objection, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. Respondent-appellant, the Board of Examiners, took note of such a plea, at the same time stating that at the next scheduled hearing, on February 12, 1965, petitioner-appellee would be called upon to testify as such witness, unless in the meantime he could secure a restraining order from a competent authority.

Petitioner appellee contends that ruling by the board of examiners to compel him to be a witness of the complainant is a clear manifestation for failure to respect his constitutional right against self incrimination. The complainants argued that the right against self-incrimination being available only when a question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a witness. It further elaborated the matter in the affirmative defenses interposed, stating that petitioner-appellee's remedy is to object once he is in the witness stand, for respondent "a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law," precluding the issuance of the relief sought. Respondent Board, therefore, denied that it acted with grave abuse of discretion.

On February 9, 1965, the lower court ordered that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the respondent Board commanding it to refrain from hearing or further proceeding with such an administrative case, to await the judicial disposition of the matter upon petitioner-appellee posting a bond in the amount of P500.00.

A motion for intervention was file by Salvador Gatbonton and Enrqueta Gatbonton, the complainants in the case for malpractice against petitioner – appellee. Sustaining the power of the board of examiners to compel the petitioner to the witness stand and further contend that the right against self incrimination cannot be availed in an admin hearing.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is deprived by the board of examiners of his right against self incrimination.

RULING:

We affirm the lower court decision on appeal as it does manifest fealty to the principle announced by us inCabal v. Kapunan. ⁸ In that proceeding for certiorari and prohibition to annul an order of Judge Kapunan, it appeared that an administrative charge for unexplained wealth having been filed against petitioner under the Anti-Graft Act,⁹the complainant requested the investigating committee that petitioner be ordered to take the witness stand, which request was granted. Upon petitioner's refusal to be sworn as such witness, a charge for contempt was filed against him in the sala of respondent Judge. He filed a motion to quash and upon its denial, he initiated this proceeding. We found for the petitioner in accordance with the well-settled principle that "the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the witness stand."

It was noted in the opinion penned by the present Chief Justice that while the matter referred to an a administrative charge of unexplained wealth, with the Anti-Graft Act authorizing the forfeiture of whatever property a public officer or employee may acquire, manifestly out proportion to his salary and his other lawful income, there is clearly the imposition of a penalty. The proceeding for forfeiture while administrative in character thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect. The case before us is not dissimilar; petitioner would be similarly disadvantaged. He could suffer not the forfeiture of property but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner, for some an even greater deprivation

The appeal apparently proceeds on the mistaken assumption by respondent Board and intervenors-appellants that the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination should be limited to allowing a witness to object to questions the answers to which could lead to a penal liability being subsequently incurred. It is true that one aspect of such a right, to follow the language of another American decision, ¹¹ is the protection against "any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." If that were all there is then it becomes diluted.lawphi1.ñet

The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right to silence. As far back as 1905, we had occasion to declare: "The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt." ¹²Only last year, in Chavez v. Court of Appeals, ¹³ speaking through Justice Sanchez, we reaffirmed the doctrine anew that 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."

Why it should be thus is not difficult to discern. The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality. More and more in line with the democratic creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. To quote from Chief Justice Warren, "the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens." ¹⁴

It is likewise of interest to note that while earlier decisions stressed the principle of humanity on which this right is predicated, precluding as it does all resort to force or compulsion, whether physical or mental, current judicial opinion places equal emphasis on its identification with the right to privacy. Thus according to Justice Douglas: "The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force to surrender to his detriment." ¹⁵ So also with the observation of the late Judge Frank who spoke of "a right to a private enclave where he may lead a private life. That right is the hallmark of our democracy." ¹⁶ In the light of the above, it could thus clearly appear that no possible objection could be legitimately raised against the correctness of the decision now on appeal. We hold that in an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot, consistently with the self-incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of August 2, 1965 is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs.