CASE NAME
DOCTRINE AND FACTS ISSUE
& KEYWORD
Pascual v. DOCTRINE: In Cabal v. Kapunan, it was held
Board of that since the administrative charge was of
Medical unexplained wealth against the respondent
Examiners there in may result in forfeiture of property
GR NO. 25018 under RA 3019, the complainant cannot call
26 May 1969 the respondent to the witness stand without
encroaching on his right against self-
KW: Right incrimination. The same rule in administrative
against self- proceedings against a medical practitioner
incrimination where the proceedings could result in the loss
, Malpractice of his privilege to practice medicine
Charge.
FACTS: It was alleged at the initial hearing
of an administrative case 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.
Petitioner-appellee argued that in thus
ruling to compel him to take the witness
stand, the Board of Examiners was guilty,
at the very least, of grave abuse of
discretion for failure to respect the
constitutional right against self-incrimination
The answer of respondent Board, while
admitting the facts stressed that it could
call petitioner-appellee to the witness stand
and interrogate him, the right against self-
incrimination being available only when a
RULING
WON the right against YES. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision on
self-incrimination may appeal as it does manifest fealty to the principle
be availed of in an announced Cabal v. Kapunan. In that proceeding for
administrative certiorari and prohibition to annul an order of Judge
hearing? Kapunan, it appeared that an administrative charge
for unexplained wealth having been filed against
petitioner under the Anti-Graft Act, the 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. The court ruled in favor of 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." The instant case 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 SC held 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.
question calling for an incriminating answer
is asked of a witness. The intervenors
Gatbonton and Gatbonton further argued that
the right against self-incrimination cannot be
availed of in an administrative hearing.
The lower court ruled in favor of the
petitioner. Hence this appeal.