Cabal vs Kapunan

​Cabal vs Kapunan
 G.R. No. L-19052, 29 December 1962
 
Facts:
Col. Jose C. Maristela of the Philippine Army filed with the Secretary of National Defense a letter-complaint charging petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of               the Armed Forces of the Philippines, with graft, corrupt practices, unexplained          wealth, conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman dictatorial tendencies, giving false statements of his assets and liabilities in 1958 and other equally    reprehensible acts. The President of the Philippines on September 6, 1961, created a committee of 5        members to investigate the charged unexplained wealth contained in the said            letter complaint. The Committee ordered Cabal to take the witness stand in the administrative proceeding and be sworn to as witness for Col. Maristela. Cabal objected the said order of the Committee and invoked his constitutional right         against self-incrimination. The Committee insisted that Cabal take the witness stand and be sworn to, subject          to his right to refuse to answer such questions as may be incriminatory. Cabal              respectfully refused to be sworn to as a witness to take the witness stand. 
 
The Committee then referred the matter to the Fiscal of Manila, for such action as he may deem proper. The City Fiscal filed with the CFI a charge for failure and     refusal to obey the order of the Committee to take the witness stand, be sworn        and testify as witness in said investigation, in utter disregard of the lawful authority   of the    Committee and thereby obstructing and degrading the proceedings before           said body. The said charge was assigned to the sala of respondent Judge Kapunan. 
 
Petitioner filed a motion to quash and said motion was denied. 
 
Issue:
 
Whether or not the Committee's ordering petitioner to take the witness stand    violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
 
Held:
 
It should be noted that, although said Committee was created to investigate the                administrative charge of unexplained wealth, there seems to be no question that                Col. Maristela does not seek the removal of petitioner herein as Chief of Staff of                the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a matter of fact he no longer holds such                office. It seems, likewise conceded that the purpose of the charge against                petitioner is to apply the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379 or the Anti-Graft                Law,       which authorizes the forfeiture to the State of property of a public officer                or employee which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public                officer or employee and his other lawful income and the income from legitimately                acquired property. Such for forfeiture has been held, however, to partake of the                nature of a penalty. 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.
 
               The Court said that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a                witness against himself. This prohibition against compelling a person to take the                stand as a witness against himself applies to criminal, quasi-criminal, and penal                proceedings,      including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property by                reason of the commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the                penalty recoverable is civil           or remedial in nature. 
 
The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is not infringed by merely     asking the                witness a question which he refuses to answer. The privilege is   simply an option of refusal, and not a prohibition of inquiry. A question is not improper merely because the answer may tend to incriminate but, where a witness exercises his constitutional right not to answer, a question by counsel    as to whether the reason for refusing to answer is because the answer         may       tend to incriminate the witness is improper.