2 Pascual v.

Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)

PENAL STATUTES | August 9, 2018 | Justice Enrique Fernando

FACTS:. Petitioner, Arsenio Pascual, Jr., was the respondent in an administrative case filed against him for
malpractice by Salvador and Enriqueta Gatbonton, this case’s intervenors. In a preliminary hearing it was
announced by the Board of Medical Examiners, respondents in this case, that petitioner would be compelled to
take the stand as a witness against himself despite his objections regarding his right against self-incrimination
provided for in Section 1, Clause 18, Article 3 of the 1935 constitution. Petitioner filed an injunction with the lower
court, which decided that petitioner was well-within his right to refuse to testify. Intervenors and respondents
proceeded to appeal this decision with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the right against self-incrimination
does not apply to administrative cases, and that this right allows witnesses to refuse only to answer incriminating
questions, and not refuse to take the stand altogether.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the right to self-incrimination as prescribed in the constitution applies to administrative
cases. - YES - The Supreme Court used as precedent the case of Cabal v. Kapunan, where the defendant
was charged with contempt for refusing to testify in an administrative case for graft. The Supreme Court
ruled he was within his rights to refuse because being found guilty would lead to forfeiture of property. The
presence of this penalty allowed him to refuse because it had become criminal in nature. Similarly, petitioner
in this case would be penalized by having to forfeit his medical license.
2. Whether the same right protects a witness from testifying at all or only from answering incrimination
questions. YES - Using Cabal v. Kapunan and Chavez v. Court of Appeals as precedent, the Supreme
Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination protects a witnesses right to silence, and even before
refusing certain questions, they may choose to forego testimony altogether.

RULING: Lower court’s ruling prohibiting respondents from compelling petitioner to take the witness stand against
himself is affirmed.

Relevant links:
- Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/may1969/gr_l-
25018_1969.html
- Cabal v. Kapunan: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/dec1962/gr_l-19052_1962.html
- Chavez v. Court of Appeals: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/aug1968/gr_l-29169_1968.html
- 1935 Constitution (See Section 1, Clause 18, Article 3): http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-
1935-constitution/