Section 17. Right Against Self-incrimination Flashcards
Section 17 codal provision
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Which question propounded to an accused
is violative of the right against self-incrimination?
a. Did you borrow P1,000,000.00 from complainant?
b. Is it true that the debt has not been paid until now?
c. Did you issue a post-dated check for the amount of
P1,000,000.00? d. Is it not a fact that you were previously convicted of violation of BP Blg.
22?
c. Did you issue a post-dated check for the amount of
P1,000,000.00
When is , a question incriminating?
A question is incriminating when the answer tends to expose you to an accusation of a crime or punishment, or it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute you.
Chavez was charged for theft of motor vehicle (now it’s called carnapping but this is a very old case). The prosecution called the accused as first witness. The accused objected. The judge said that you take the witness stand, you only object when the question is incriminating. Because of his testimony, the judge convicted the accused calling him the “star witness of the prosecution.”
Issue: Whether or not the accused can be forced to take the witness stand.
NO! Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, and accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. For, in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person “to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction.” This rule may apply even to a co- defendant in a joint trial.
This is a medical malpractice case against a doctor. His license was sought to be removed before the Board of Medical Examiners. In the hearing before the Board of Medical Examiners, he was called by the opponent as a witness to testify and he refused.
Issue: Can he be compelled to take the witness stand?
Held: NO! While the matter referred to an administrative charge … there is clearly the imposition of a penalty [revocation of license to practice medicine]. We conclude … that the Self-Incrimination Clause extends its protection to lawyers as well as to other individuals, and that it should not be watered down by imposing the dishonor of disbarment and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it.” We reiterate that such a principle is equally applicable to a proceeding that could possibly result in the loss of the privilege to practice the medical profession.
We hold 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.
Facts: This is a medical malpractice case against a doctor. His license was sought to be removed before the Board of Medical Examiners. In the hearing before the Board of Medical Examiners, he was called by the opponent as a witness to testify and he refused.
Issue: Can he be compelled to take the witness stand?
NO! While the matter referred to an administrative charge … there is clearly the imposition of a penalty [revocation of license to practice medicine]. We conclude … that the Self-Incrimination Clause extends its protection to lawyers as well as to other individuals, and that it should not be watered down by imposing the dishonor of disbarment and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it.” We reiterate that such a principle is equally applicable to a proceeding that could possibly result in the loss of the privilege to practice the medical profession.
We hold 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.
What is the scope of the nature of the right in administrative cases?
The Supreme Court put it in a very guarded ‘ manner: In an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, he may not be compelled to take the witness stand without his consent. He can suffer revocation of license.
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.
Issue: Can a person administratively charged for forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth be compelled to take the witness stand?
Held: NO! While the matter referred to an a administrative charge of unexplained wealth, with the Anti-Graft Act authorizing the forfeiture of whatever property a public officer or employee may acquire, manifestly out proportion to his salary and his other lawful income, there is clearly the imposition of a penalty. The proceeding for forfeiture while administrative in character thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect. As a consequence, proceedings for forfeiture of proper are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence, the exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves are applicable thereto.
Facts: Bagadiong, et al. were allegedly disbursing public funds not for approved purposes. Plaintiff-respondents Abundo, et al. filed a civil case for prohibition with preliminary prohibition and mandatory injunction. When the case was called for trial, counsel for plaintiffs called one of the defendants, the herein petitioner, BAGADIONG, to the witness stand as one of the witnesses for the plaintiffs. Counsel opposed on ground of violation of right against self-incrimination.
Issue: Can a defendant be compelled to take the witness stand in a civil case?
Facts: Bagadiong, et al. were allegedly disbursing public funds not for approved purposes. Plaintiff-respondents Abundo, et al. filed a civil case for prohibition with preliminary prohibition and mandatory injunction. When the case was called for trial, counsel for plaintiffs called one of the defendants, the herein petitioner, BAGADIONG, to the witness stand as one of the witnesses for the plaintiffs. Counsel opposed on ground of violation of right against self-incrimination.
Issue: Can a defendant be compelled to take the witness stand in a civil case?
Held: YES! It is (only) in a criminal case where the accused may not be compelled to testify. But while the constitutional guaranty against self-
incrimination protects a person in ALL types of cases, said privilege, in proceedings other than a criminal case against him who invokes it, is considered an option to refuse to answer incriminating question, and not a prohibition of inquiry.
But it is established that the privilege against self-incrimination must be invoked at the proper time, and the proper time to invoke it is when a question calling for a criminating answer is propounded. This has to be so, because before a question is asked there would be no way of telling whether the information to be elicited from the witness is self-incriminating or not.
Facts: Sabio while being chairman of PCGG was invited in the Senate for an inquiry in aid of legislation. He refused to appear invoking Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 which provides that: “No member or staff of the Commission shall
be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.
Issue: Is the said provision valid?
NO! The 1987 Constitution recognizes the power of investigation, not just of Congress, but also of “any of its committee.” This is significant because it constitutes a direct conferral of investigatory power upon the committees i.e. and it means that the mechanisms which the Houses can take in order to effectively perform its investigative function are also available to the
committees.
Sabio while being chairman of PCGG was invited in the Senate for an inquiry in aid of legislation. He refused to appear invoking Section 4 (b) of
E.O. No. 1 which provides that: “No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or
administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance. Can the witness refuse to attend the investigation invoking his right
against self-incrimination?
NO! Anent the right against self-incrimination, it must be emphasized
that this right maybe invoked … only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. That this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying respondent Senate Committees their power of inquiry. The consolation is that when this power is abused, such issue may be presented before the courts.
Judge Yu was administratively charged for conduct unbecoming of a ROC, RULE 115 Rights of Accused member of the judiciary by another female judge for sending her Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal numerous messages with sexual insinuations through their Facebook
accounts. Since the messages themselves were the evidence offered by complainant, can the right be invoked in cases of non-testimonial
incrimination
No. The constitutional guarantee simply secures to a witness – whether a party or not – the right to refuse to answer any particular
incriminatory question? The privilege did not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters. At any rate, the rule only finds application in case
of oral testimony and does not apply to object evidence. As the Court has pointed out in People v. Malimit: [The right against self-incrimination],
as put by Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United States, “x x x is a
prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort
communications from him x x x” It is simply a prohibition against legal . process to extract from the [accused]’s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence.
