& KEYWORD Pascual v. DOCTRINE: In Cabal v. Kapunan, it was held WON the right against YES. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision on Board of that since the administrative charge was of self-incrimination may appeal as it does manifest fealty to the principle Medical unexplained wealth against the respondent be availed of in an announced Cabal v. Kapunan. In that proceeding for Examiners there in may result in forfeiture of property administrative certiorari and prohibition to annul an order of Judge GR NO. 25018 under RA 3019, the complainant cannot call hearing? Kapunan, it appeared that an administrative charge 26 May 1969 the respondent to the witness stand without for unexplained wealth having been filed against encroaching on his right against self- petitioner under the Anti-Graft Act, the complainant KW: Right incrimination. The same rule in administrative requested the investigating committee that petitioner against self- proceedings against a medical practitioner be ordered to take the witness stand, which request incrimination where the proceedings could result in the loss was granted. Upon petitioner's refusal to be sworn , Malpractice of his privilege to practice medicine as such witness, a charge for contempt was filed Charge. against him in the sala of respondent Judge. He filed FACTS: It was alleged at the initial hearing a motion to quash and upon its denial, he initiated of an administrative case for alleged this proceeding. The court ruled in favor of the immorality, counsel for complainants petitioner in accordance with the well-settled announced that he would present as his principle that "the accused in a criminal case may first witness herein petitioner-appellee, who refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, was the respondent in such malpractice also, to take the witness stand." The instant case is charge. not dissimilar; petitioner would be similarly disadvantaged. He could suffer not the forfeiture of Petitioner-appellee argued that in thus property but the revocation of his license as a ruling to compel him to take the witness medical practitioner, for some an even greater stand, the Board of Examiners was guilty, deprivation. at the very least, of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respect the The SC held that in an administrative hearing against constitutional right against self-incrimination a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot, The answer of respondent Board, while consistently with the self incrimination clause, admitting the facts stressed that it could compel the person proceeded against to take the call petitioner-appellee to the witness stand witness stand without his consent. and interrogate him, the right against self- incrimination being available only when a 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.