Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners Case Digest
Facts:
Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton filed an administrative case against Arsenio Pascual Jr.
for alleged immorality. At the initial hearing thereof, Gatbonton’s counsel announced that he would present Pascual as his first witness. Pascual objected, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. 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. The lower court ordered that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the Board commanding it to refrain from hearing or further proceeding with such an administrative case and to await the judicial disposition of the matter. Subsequently, a decision was rendered by the lower court finding the claim of Pascual to be well-founded and prohibiting the Board "from compelling the petitioner to act and testify as a witness for the complainant in said investigation without his consent and against himself." Hence, the Board appealed.
for alleged immorality. At the initial hearing thereof, Gatbonton’s counsel announced that he would present Pascual as his first witness. Pascual objected, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. 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. The lower court ordered that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the Board commanding it to refrain from hearing or further proceeding with such an administrative case and to await the judicial disposition of the matter. Subsequently, a decision was rendered by the lower court finding the claim of Pascual to be well-founded and prohibiting the Board "from compelling the petitioner to act and testify as a witness for the complainant in said investigation without his consent and against himself." Hence, the Board appealed.
Issue:
Whether a medical practitioner charged with malpractice in administrative case can avail of the constitutional guarantee not to be a witness against himself.
Held:
Yes. The case for malpractice and cancellation of the license to practice medicine while administrative in character possesses a criminal or penal aspect. An unfavorable decision would result in the revocation of the license of the respondent to practice medicine. Consequently, he can refuse to take the witness stand.
The right against self-incrimination extends not only to right to refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on witness stand, but also to forgo testimony, to remain silent and refuse to take the witness stand when called by as a witness by the prosecution. The reason is that the right against self incrimination, along with the other rights granted to the accused, stands for a belief that while a crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objective should not be accomplished according to means and methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the human personality. (Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, G.R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969)
No comments