Consti II case digest:CHAVEZ VS CA

TIME TO INVOKE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN CRIMINAL CASE

FACTS:

Petitioner herein was charged of qualified theft of a motor vehicle,one Thunderbird car, with accessories amounting to P22,000.

That this theft was committed when the petitioner with the help of one, Asistio have completed a deed of sale of Thunderbird which belongs to Johnson Lee. Chavesz telephoned Lee and made an appointment for the sale of Thunderbird with Sumilang as a  introduced buyer.

As payment was made to Eugene’s restaurant in Quezon City, all of them then drove to the place. Chavez and Sumilang, pretending to get the money for the perfection of sale of the Thunderbird car, left the two Chinese alone, Johnson Lee and his brother.

When the two Chinese went outside to look for Chavez and Sumilang, they could no longer locate the former and the Thunderbird car was also from the parking lot.

Nevertheless the Thunderbird was impounded however, it was already been repainted.

During the trial, the Fiscal Grecia presented Chavez as a witness. And despite of Chavez’s objection being aware that the latter would be self incriminated, the Court sustained the stand of the Fiscal saying.

“What he will testify to does not necessarily incriminate him, counsel.”

“And there is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as  witness on the witness stand including the accused.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner’s statement against himself can be used to convict him.

HELD:

No. It is in the context that we sat that the constitutional guarantee may not be treated with unconcern. To repeat, it is mandatory: it secures to every defendant a valuable and substantive right.

The court may not extract from a defendant’s own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt.

In reality, the purpose calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him.

In the case at bar, the petitioner did not volunteer to take the witness stand in his own defence; he did not offer himself as a witness; on the contrary, he claimed the right upon being called to testify.

There is not even a valid waiver of the privilege. To be valid and effective, a waiver must be certain and unequivocal, and intelligently, understandably and willingly made.

Wherefore the accused is acquitted.