Pascual, Jr. v.

Board of Medical Examiners

G.R. No. L-25018 May 26, 1969 Justice Fernando
[Art 3 - Sec. 17] Created by: @markzgamboa
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.”
Petitioners Respondents
ARSENIO PASCUAL, JR., petitioner-appellee, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, respondent-
appellant
Recit Ready Summary
Pascual, the respondent in an administrative charge for malpractice was compelled to testify as witness in the next hearing.
Pascual then asked lower court for a writ of preliminary injunction to from hearing or proceeding with the administrative case.
Lower sided with Pascual.

Issue is W/N Pascual’s right against self incrimination is violated when he is compelled to take the witness stand? Yes

Courts used the Cabal v Kapunan case wherein the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory
questions, but, also, to take the witness stand. Like in the Kapunan case, Pascual could also be disadvantaged by losing his
right to practice his medical profession. Court says that constitutional guarantee also protects the right to silence and his
silence cannot be a presumption of guilt. Desirable objectives such as punishing crimes and revealing the truth, should not be
attained through means or methods offensive to the respect accorded to the human person.

Facts of the Case

Pascual is the respondent in an administrative charge for malpractice. In the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged
immorality, counsel for complainants would present petitioner-apellee (Pascual) as first witness. Pascual objected relying on the
constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. Respondent Board of Examiners (BoE) then told Pascual
that he should testify as witness in the next hearing.

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.

Petitioner’s contention: In being compelled to take the stand, the BoE was guilty of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respect
the constitutional right against self-incrimination, the administrative proceeding against him, which could result in forfeiture or loss
of a privilege, being quasi-criminal in character.
Respondent’s contention: the right against self-incrimination is available only when a question calling for an incriminating answer
is asked. Witness’s remedy is to object to the question asked. ( Look at ratio 2 and 3)

Issues Ruling
1. Whether or not Pascual’s right against self incrimination is violated when he is compelled to take the Yes
witness stand?
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Court used the case Cabal v. Kapunan wherein there was an administrative charge for unexplained wealth. The court therein
said “the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the witness stand."
Proceedings for forfeiture of property, while administrative in character also has a penal aspect.
In the present case, Pascual would also 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
2. The constitutional guarantee also protects the right to silence.
 "The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt."
 Right to "to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted, unfettered
exercise of his own free genuine will."
3. Desirable objectives such as punishing crimes and revealing the truth, should not be attained through means or methods
offensive to the respect accorded to the human person.
 the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity and
integrity of its citizens
 self-incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force to surrender to
his detriment
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of August 2, 1965 is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs.