Manue Manuell F. Cabal Cabal v. Hon. Hon. Ruper Ruperto to Kapun Kapunan an,, Jr. Jr. City City Fisca Fiscall of Mani Manila la | Dec Dec 29, 192 | J. Concepcion Facts! On or about August 1961, Col. Jose C. Maristela fled with the Secretary o ation !eense a letter" co#$laint charging $etitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chie o Sta% o the Ar#ed &orces o the 'hili$$ines, with (grat, corru$t $ractices, $ractices, une)$lained une)$lained wealth, conduct unbeco#ing o an o*cer and gentle#an gentle#an dictatorial tendencies, gi+ing alse state#ents o his assets and liabilities in 19- and other eually re$rehensible acts(. /ecause o this, the 'resident created a co##ittee o #e#bers to in+estigate the charge o une)$lained wealth contained in the letter. 0he co##ittee, u$on reuest o Maristela, reuested Cabal to tae the witness stand and be sworn as witness or Maristela, in su$$ort o his aore#entioned charge o une)$lained wealth. Cabal ob2ected and reused in+oing his constitutional right against sel"incri#ination. 3e was then charged with conte#$t and reuested to show cause and4or answer the charge fled within 15 days. es$ondents herein allege, inter alia, that the in+estigation being conducted by the Co##ittee abo+e reerred to is ad#inistrati+e, not cri#inal, in nature7 that the legal $ro+ision relied u$on by $etitioner in relation to $reli#inary in+estigations 8Section 5-"C, e$ublic Act o. :59, as a#ended by e$ublic Act Act o. 1;51< is ina$$li ina$$licab cable le to conte# conte#$t $t $roce $roceedi edings7 ngs7 that, under under section section -5 o the e+ised e+ised Ad#inistrati+ Ad#inistrati+e e Code. Conte#$t Conte#$t against an ad#inistrati+e ad#inistrati+e o*cer is to be dealt with as conte#$t o a su$e su$eri rior or cour court7 t7 that that $etit $etitio ione nerr here herein in is char charge ged d with with only only one one o%ens o%ense7 e7 and and that, that, tinde tinderr the the constitutional constitutional guarantee against sel"incri#ina sel"incri#ination, tion, $etitioner herein #ay reuse, reuse, not to tae tae the witness stand, but to answer incri#inatory uestions.
"ssue! =4 the $roceedings beore the aore#entioned Co##ittee is ci+il or cri#inal in character. 8o, it is cri#inal in nature<
#R$%& "''($) *+ Cabal-s ri/t r i/t aainst self0incriination self0incriination is violate by copellin /i to ta3e t/e 4itness stan5 6$' Hel! Although said Co##ittee was created to in+estigate the ad#inistrati+e charge o une)$lained wealth, there see#s to be no uestion that Col. Maristela does not see the re#o+al o $etitioner ro# his $osition 8he no longer holds the o*ce<. >t see#s that the underlying $ur$ose o the charge against $etitioner $etitioner is to a$$ly the $ro+isions $ro+isions o e$ublic Act o. 1?@98Anti"rat 1?@98Anti"rat Baw<, which authories authories the oreiture to the State o $ro$erty o a $ublic o*cer or e#$loyee which is #aniestly out o $ro$ortion to his salary as such $ublic o*cer or e#$loyee and his other lawul inco#e and the inco#e ro# legiti#ately acuired $ro$erty. Such or oreiture is in the nature o a $enalty. As a conseuence, $roceedings or oreiture o $ro$er are dee#ed cri#inal or $enal, and, hence, the e)e#$tion o deendants in cri#inal case ro# the obligation to be witnesses against the#sel+es are a$$licable. 'roceedings or oreitures are generally considered to be ci+il and in the nature o $roceedings in re#. >n so#e as$ects, howe+er, suits or $enalties and oreitures are o uasi"cri#inal nature and withi within n the the reaso reason n o cri#i cri#inal nal $roc $rocee eedin dings gs or or all the the $ur$o $ur$ose ses s o ))) ))) that that $ortio $ortion n o the the &ith ith A#end#ent which declares, that no $erson shall be co#$elled in any cri#inal case to be a witness against hi#sel. hi#sel. 0he rule $rotecting $rotecting a $erson ro# being co#$elled co#$elled to urnish urnish e+idence which would incri#inate hi# e)ists not only when he is liable cri#inally to $rosecution and $unish#ent, but also when his answer would tend to e)$ose hi# to a ))) oreiture ))) 0his ))) 0his $rohibition against ag ainst co#$elling a $erson to tae the stand as a witness against hi#sel a$$lied only to cri#inal, uasi"cri#inal, and $enal $roceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property by reason of the commission of an oense, oense, but not a $roceeding in which the $enalty reco+erable is ci+il or re#edial in nature. 0he $ri+ilege o a witness not to incri#inate hi#sel is not inringed by #erely asing as ing the witness a uestion which he reuses to answer. 0he $ri+ilege is si#$ly an o$tion o reusal, and not a $rohibition o inuiry. A uestion is not i#$ro$er #erely because the answer #ay tend to incri#inate but, where a witness e)ercises his constitutional right not to answer, a uestion by counsel as to whether the reason or reusing to answer is because the answer #ay tend to incri#inate the witness is i#$ro$er.
0he $ossibility that the e)a#ination o the witness will be $ursued to the e)tent o reuiring sel" incri#ination will not 2ustiy the reusal to answer uestions. However, where the position of the witness is virtually that of an accused on trial, it would appear that he may invoke the privilege in support of a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions.
'ince t/e proceein for t/e forfeiture of property uner t/e %nti07raft &a4 4as eee criinal, Cabal 4as accore t/e ri/t to refuse to ta3e t/e 4itness stan 8Fr. 7reenboo3:
