Scribd
Upload
206 views

SelfIncrmination Digest 06

The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Medical Examiners cannot compel a medical practitioner facing administrative charges of malpractice to testify without his consent, as this would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While administrative hearings do not involve criminal prosecution, compelling testimony could still result in the revocation of the practitioner's medical license. The Court held that the constitutional guarantee of the right to remain silent protects an individual from being forced to testify in any proceeding where doing so could incriminate them or lead to punishment.

Uploaded by

Steve Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
206 views

SelfIncrmination Digest 06

The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Medical Examiners cannot compel a medical practitioner facing administrative charges of malpractice to testify without his consent, as this would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While administrative hearings do not involve criminal prosecution, compelling testimony could still result in the revocation of the practitioner's medical license. The Court held that the constitutional guarantee of the right to remain silent protects an individual from being forced to testify in any proceeding where doing so could incriminate them or lead to punishment.

Uploaded by

Steve Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

06. PASCUAL VS.

BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS


GR No. 25018, May 26, 1969

FACTS

Petitioner Arsenio Pascual, Jr. filed an action for prohibition against the Board of Medical Examiners. It
was alleged therein that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immorality. The Board
of Examiners took note of such a plea but scheduled Pascual to testify in the next hearing unless in
the meantime he could secure a restraining order from a competent authority. Pascual filed with the
Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction
against the Board of Medical Examiners. Thereupon, petitioner, through counsel, made of record his
objection, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself.
Petitioner then alleged that 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. Respondent, while admitting the facts stressed that it could call petitioner
to the witness stand and interrogate him, the right against self-incrimination being available only
when a question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a witness. They likewise alleged that
the right against self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative hearing. Petitioner was
sustained by the lower court in his plea that he could not be compelled to be the first witness of the
complainants. Hence, this appeal by respondent.

ISSUE

Whether or Not compelling petitioner to be the first witness of the complainants violates the Self-
Incrimination Clause.
.

HELD

The Supreme Court 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. If petitioner would be compelled to testify against himself, he could suffer not the
forfeiture of property but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner. The constitutional
guarantee protects as well 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." The reason for this constitutional guarantee,
along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go
unpunished and that the truth must be revealed. The constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is
the respect a government must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens.

You might also like