Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 71208-09 August 30, 1985
SATURNINA GALMAN AN RE!NALO GALMAN, petitioners,
vs.
T"E "ONORA#LE PRESIING $USTICE MANUEL PAMARAN AN ASSOCIATE
$USTICES AUGUSTO AMORES AN #IEN%ENIO %ERA CRU& O' T"E
SANIGAN#A!AN, T"E "ONORA#LE #ERNARO 'ERNANE&,
TANO#A!AN, GENERAL 'A#IAN C. %ER, MA$OR GENERAL PROSPERO
OLI%AS, SGT. PA#LO MARTINE&, SGT. TOMAS 'ERNANE&, SGT. LEONARO
MO$ICA SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. PROSPERO #ONA AN A(C ANICETO
ACUPIO, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 71212-13 August 30, 1985
PEOPLE O' T"E P"ILIPPINES, )*+)*s*,t*- ./ t0* TANO#A!AN
1OM#USMAN2, petitioner,
vs.
T"E SANIGAN#A!AN, GENERAL 'A#IAN C. %ER, MA$OR GEN. PROSPERO
OLI%AS, SGT. PA#LO MARTINE&, SGT. TOMAS 'ERNANE&, SGT. LEONARO
MO$ICA, SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. PROSPERO #ONA AN AIC ANICETO
ACUPIO, respondents.

CUE%AS, $R., J.:
On August 2, !"#, a cri$e unparalleled in repercussions and ra$ifications %as
co$$itted inside the pre$ises of the Manila &nternational Airport 'M&A( in Pasa) Cit).
*or$er +enator Benigno +. A,uino, -r., an opposition stal%art %ho %as returning to
the countr) after a long.so/ourn abroad, %as gunned do%n to death. 0he
assassination rippled shoc1.%aves throughout the entire countr) %hich reverberated
be)ond the territorial confines of this Republic. 0he after.shoc1s stunned the nation
even $ore as this ra$ified to all aspects of Philippine political, econo$ic and social
life.
0o deter$ine the facts and circu$stances surrounding the 1illing and to allo% a free,
unli$ited and e2haustive investigation of all aspects of the traged),
1
P.3. ""4 %as
pro$ulgated creating an ad hoc *act *inding Board %hich later beca$e $ore
popularl) 1no%n as the Agrava Board.
2
Pursuant to the po%ers vested in it b) P.3.
""4, the Board conducted public hearings %herein various %itnesses appeared and
testified and5or produced docu$entar) and other evidence either in obedience to a
subpoena or in response to an invitation issued b) the Board A$ong the %itnesses
%ho appeared, testified and produced evidence before the Board %ere the herein
private respondents 6eneral *abian C. 7er, Ma/or 6eneral Prospero Olivas,
3
+gt.
Pablo Martine8, +gt. 0o$as *ernande8, +gt. 9eonardo Mo/ica, +gt. Pepito 0orio, +gt.
Prospero Bona and A&C Aniceto Acupido.
3

:PON ter$ination of the investigation, t%o '2( reports %ere sub$itted to ;is
E2cellenc), President *erdinand E. Marcos. One, b) its Chair$an, the ;on. -ustice
Cora8on -uliano Agrava< and another one, /ointl) authored b) the other $e$bers of
the Board = na$el)> ;on. 9uciano +ala8ar, ;on. A$ado 3i8on, ;on. 3ante +antos
and ;on. Ernesto ;errera. ?the reports %ere thereafter referred and turned over to
the 0ANO3BA@AN for appropriate action. After conducting the necessar) preli$inar)
investigation, the 0ANO3BA@AN
5
filed %ith the +AN3&6ANBA@AN t%o '2(
&nfor$ations for M:R3ER.one for the 1illing of +en. Benigno +. A,uino %hich %as
doc1eted as Cri$inal Case No. AAA and another, cri$inal Case No. AA, for the
1illing of Rolando 6al$an, %ho %as found dead on the airport tar$ac not far fro$ the
prostrate bod) of +en. A,uino on that sa$e fateful da). &n both cri$inal cases,
private respondents %ere charged as accessories, along %ith several principals, and
one acco$plice.
:pon arraign$ent, all the accused, including the herein private ate Respondents
pleaded NO0 6:&90@.
&n the course of the /oint trial of the t%o '2( afore$entioned cases, the Prosecution
represented b) the Office of the petition 0ANO3BA@AN, $ar1ed and thereafter
offered as part of its evidence, the individual testi$onies of private respondents
before the Agrava Board.
4
Private respondents, through their respective counsel
ob/ected to the ad$ission of said e2hibits. Private respondent 6en. 7er filed a for$al
BMotion to E2clude 0esti$onies of 6en. *abian C. 7er before the *act *inding Board
as Evidence against hi$ in the above.entitled casesB
7
contending that its ad$ission
%ill be in derogation of his constitutional right against self.incri$ination and violative
of the i$$unit) granted b) P.3. ""4. ;e pra)ed that his aforesaid testi$on) be
re/ected as evidence for the prosecution. Ma/or 6en. Olivas and the rest of the other
private respondents li1e%ise filed separate $otions to e2clude their respective
individual testi$onies invo1ing the sa$e ground.
8
Petitioner 0ANO3BA@AN opposed
said $otions contending that the i$$unit) relied upon b) the private respondents in
support of their $otions to e2clude their respective testi$onies, %as not available to
the$ because of their failure to invo1e their right against self.incri$ination before the
ad hoc *act *inding Board.
9
Respondent +AN3&6ANBA@AN ordered the
0ANO3BA@AN and the private respondents to sub$it their respective $e$orandu$
on the issue after %hich said $otions %ill be considered sub$itted for resolution.
10
On Ma) #A, !"C, petitioner having no further %itnesses to present and having been
re,uired to $a1e its offer of evidence in %riting, respondent +AN3&6ANBA@AN,
%ithout the pending $otions for e2clusion being resolved, issued a Resolution
1
directing that b) agree$ent of the parties, the pending $otions for e2clusion and the
opposition thereto, together %ith the $e$orandu$ in support thereof, as %ell as the
legal issues and argu$ents, raised therein are to be considered /ointl) in the Court?s
Resolution on the prosecution?s for$al offer of e2hibits and other docu$entar)
evidences.
11
On -une #, !"C, the prosecution $ade a %ritten B*or$al Offer of
EvidenceB %hich includes, a$ong others, the testi$onies of private respondents and
other evidences produced b) the$ before the Board, all of %hich have been
previousl) $ar1ed in the course of the trial.
12
All the private respondents ob/ected to the prosecution?s for$al offer of evidence on
the sa$e ground relied upon b) the$ in their respective $otion for e2clusion.
On -une #, !"C, respondent +AN3&6ANBA@AN issued a Resolution, no% assailed
in these t%o '2( petitions, ad$itting all the evidences offered b) the prosecution
e2cept the testi$onies and5or other evidence produced b) the private respondents in
vie% of the i$$unit) granted b) P.3. ""4.
13
Petitioners? $otion for the reconsideration of the said Resolution having been
3EN&E3, the) no% co$e before :s b) %a) of certiorari
13
pra)ing for the a$end$ent
and5or setting aside of the challenged Resolution on the ground that it %as issued
%ithout /urisdiction and5or %ith grave abuse of discretion a$ounting to lac1 of
/urisdiction. Private prosecutor belo%, as counsel for the $other of deceased
Rolando 6al$an, also filed a separate petition for certiorari
15
on the sa$e ground.
;aving arisen fro$ the sa$e factual beginnings and raising practicall) &dentical
issues, the t%o '2( petitioners %ere consolidated and %ill therefore be /ointl) dealt
%ith and resolved in this 3ecision.
0he cru2 of the instant controvers) is the ad$issibilit) in evidence of the testi$onies
given b) the eight '"( private respondents %ho did not invo1e their rights against self.
incri$ination before the Agrava Board.
&t is the sub$ission of the prosecution, no% represented b) the petitioner
0ANO3BA@AN, that said testi$onies are ad$issible against the private respondents,
respectivel), because of the latter?s failure to invo1e before the Agrava Board the
i$$unit) granted b) P.3. ""4. +ince private respondents did not invo1e said
privilege, the i$$unit) did not attach. Petitioners %ent further b) contending that
such failure to clai$ said constitutional privilege a$ounts to a %aiver thereof.
14
0he
private respondents, on the other hand, clai$ that not%ithstanding failure to set up
the privilege against self. incri$ination before the Agrava Board, said evidences
cannot be used against the$ as $andated b) +ection C of the said P.3. ""4. 0he)
contend that %ithout the i$$unit) provided for b) the second clause of +ection C,
P.3. ""4, the legal co$pulsion i$posed b) the first clause of the sa$e +ection
%ould suffer fro$ constitutional infir$it) for being violative of the %itness? right
against self. incri$ination.
17
0hus, the protagonists are loc1ed in horns on the effect
and legal significance of failure to set up the privilege against self.incri$ination.
0he ,uestion presented before :s is a novel one. ;eretofore, this Court has not
been previousl) called upon to rule on issues involving i$$unit) statutes. 0he
relative novelt) of the ,uestion coupled %ith the e2traordinar) circu$stance that had
precipitated the sa$e did nothing to ease the burden of la)ing do%n the criteria upon
%hich this Court %ill henceforth build future /urisprudence on a heretofore une2plored
area of /udicial in,uir). &n carr)ing out this $onu$ental tas1, ho%ever, De shall be
guided, as al%a)s, b) the constitution and e2isting la%s.
0he Agrava Board,
18
ca$e into e2istence in response to a popular public cla$or that
an i$partial and independent bod), instead of an) ordinar) police agenc), be
charged %ith the tas1 of conducting the investigation. 0he then earl) distortions and
e2aggerations, both in foreign and local $edia, relative to the probable $otive behind
the assassination and the person or persons responsible for or involved in the
assassination hastened its creation and heavil) contributed to its earl) for$ation.
19
Although referred to and designated as a $ere *act *inding Board, the Board is in
truth and in fact, and to all legal intents and purposes, an entit) charged, not onl)
%ith the function of deter$ining the facts and circu$stances surrounding the 1illing,
but $ore i$portantl), the deter$ination of the person or persons cri$inall)
responsible therefor so that the) $a) be brought before the bar of /ustice. *or
indeed, %hat good %ill it be to the entire nation and the $ore than CA $illion *ilipinos
to 1no% the facts and circu$stances of the 1illing if the culprit or culprits %ill
nevertheless not be dealt %ith cri$inall)E 0his purpose is i$plicit fro$ +ection 2 of
the said Presidential 3ecree, the pertinent portion of %hich provides =
+EC0&ON 2. 0he findings of the Board shall be $ade public.
+hould the findings %arrant the prosecution of an) person, the
Board $a) initiate the filing of proper co$plaint %ith the
appropriate got govern$ent agenc). ... 'E$phasis supplied(
0he investigation therefor is also geared, as an) other si$ilar investigation of its sort,
to the ascertain$ent and5or deter$ination of the culprit or culprits, their conse,uent
prosecution and ulti$atel), their conviction. And as safeguard, the P.3. guarantees
Ban) person called to testif) before the Board the right to counsel at an) stage of the
proceedings.B
20
Considering the foregoing environ$ental settings, it cannot be
denied that in the course of receiving evidence, persons su$$oned to testif) %ill
include not $erel) plain %itnesses but also those suspected as authors and co.
participants in the tragic 1illing. And %hen suspects are su$$oned and called to
testif) and5or produce evidence, the situation is one %here the person testif)ing or
producing evidence is undergoing investigation for the co$$ission of an offense and
not $erel) in order to shed light on the facts and surrounding circu$stances of the
assassination, but $ore i$portantl), to deter$ine the character and e2tent of his
participation therein.
A$ong this class of %itnesses %ere the herein private respondents, suspects in the
said assassination, all of %ho$ e2cept 6enerals 7er and Olivas, %ere detained
'under technical arrest( at the ti$e the) %ere su$$oned and gave their testi$onies
2
before the Agrava Board. 0his not%ithstanding, Presidential 3ecree No. ""4 denied
the$ the right to re$ain silent. 0he) %ere co$pelled to testif) or be %itnesses
against the$selves. +ection C of P.3. ""4 leave the$ no choice. 0he) have to ta1e
the %itness stand, testif) or produce evidence, under pain of conte$pt if the) failed
or refused to do so.
21
0he /eopard) of being placed behind prison bars even before
conviction dangled before their ver) e)es. +i$ilarl), the) cannot invo1e the right not
to be a %itness against the$selves, both of %hich are sacrosantl) enshrined and
protected b) our funda$ental la%.
21
-5 Both these constitutional rights 'to re$ain
silent and not to be co$pelled to be a %itness against hi$self( %ere right a%a) totall)
foreclosed b) P.3. ""4. And )et %hen the) so testified and produced evidence as
ordered, the) %ere not i$$une fro$ prosecution b) reason of the testi$on) given b)
the$.
Of course, it $a) be argued is not the right to re$ain silent available onl) to a person
undergoing custodial interrogationE De find no categorical state$ent in the
constitutional provision on the $atter %hich reads>
... An) person under investigation for the co$$ission of an offense
shall have the right to re$ain and to counsel, and to be infor$ed of
such right. ...
22
'E$phasis supplied(
+ince the effectivit) of the !F# Constitution, %e no% have a $ass of /urisprudence
23
on this specific portion of the sub/ect provision. &n all these cases, it has been
categoricall) declared that a person detained for the co$$ission of an offense
undergoing investigation has a right to be infor$ed of his right to re$ain silent, to
counsel, and to an ad$onition that an) and all state$ents to be given b) hi$ $a) be
used against hi$. +ignificantl) ho%ever, there has been no pronounce$ent in an) of
these cases nor in an) other that a person si$ilarl) undergoing investigation for the
co$$ission of an offense, if not detained, is not entitled to the constitutional
ad$onition $andated b) said +ection 2A, Art. &7 of the Bill of Rights.
0he fact that the fra$ers of our Constitution did not choose to use the ter$
BcustodialB b) having it inserted bet%een the %ords BunderB and investigationB, as in
fact the sentence opens %ith the phrase Ban) person B goes to prove that the) did not
adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine.
23
Neither are %e i$pressed b)
petitioners? contention that the use of the %ord BconfessionB in the last sentence of
said +ection 2A, Article G connotes the &dea that it applies onl) to police investigation,
for although the %ord BconfessionB is used, the protection covers not onl)
BconfessionsB but also Bad$issionsB $ade in violation of this section. 0he) are
inad$issible against the source of the confession or ad$ission and against third
person.
25

&t is true a person in custod) undergoing investigation labors under a $ore
for$idable ordeal and graver tr)ing conditions than one %ho is at libert) %hile being
investigated. But the co$$on deno$inator in both %hich is sought to be avoided is
the evil of e2torting fro$ the ver) $outh of the person undergoing interrogation for
the co$$ission of an offense, the ver) evidence %ith %hich to prosecute and
thereafter convict hi$. 0his is the la$entable situation %e have at hand.
All the private respondents, e2cept 6enerals 7er and Olivas, are $e$bers of the
$ilitar) contingent that escorted +en. A,uino %hile dise$bar1ing fro$ the plane that
brought hi$ ho$e to Manila on that fateful da). Being at the scene of the cri$e as
such, the) %ere a$ong the first line of suspects in the sub/ect assassination. 6eneral
7er on the other hand, being the highest $ilitar) authorit) of his co.petitioners
labored under the sa$e suspicion and so %ith 6eneral Olivas, the first designated
investigator of the traged), but %ho$ others suspected, felt and believed to have
bungled the case. 0he papers, especiall) the foreign $edia, and ru$ors fro$
ugl)%agging tongues, all point to the$ as having, in one %a) or another participated
or have so$ething to do, in the alleged conspirac) that brought about the
assassination. Could there still be an) doubt then that their being as1ed to testif),
%as to deter$ine %hether the) %ere reall) conspirators and if so, the e2tent of their
participation in the said conspirac)E &t is too ta2ing upon one?s credulit) to believe
that private respondents? being called to the %itness stand %as $erel) to elicit fro$
the$ facts and circu$stances surrounding the traged), %hich %as alread) so
abundantl) supplied b) other ordinar) %itnesses %ho had testified earlier. &n fact, the
records sho% that 6enerals 7er and Olivas %ere a$ong the last %itnesses called b)
the Agrava Board. 0he sub/ect $atter dealt %ith and the line of ,uestioning as sho%n
b) the transcript of their testi$onies before the Agrava Board, indubitabl) evinced
purposes other than $erel) eliciting and deter$ining the so.called surrounding facts
and circu$stances of the assassination. &n the light of the e2a$ination reflected b)
the record, it is not far.fetched to conclude that the) %ere called to the stand to
deter$ine their probable involve$ent in the cri$e being investigated. @et the) have
not been infor$ed or at the ver) least even %arned %hile so testif)ing, even at that
particular stage of their testi$onies, of their right to re$ain silent and that an)
state$ent given b) the$ $a) be used against the$. &f the investigation %as
conducted, sa) b) the PC, NB& or b) other police agenc), all the herein private
respondents could not have been co$pelled to give an) state$ent %hether
incri$inator) or e2culpator). Not onl) that. 0he) are also entitled to be ad$onished
of their constitutional right to re$ain silent, to counsel, and be infor$ed that an) and
all state$ents given b) the$ $a) be used against the$. 3id the) lose their aforesaid
constitutional rights si$pl) because the investigation %as b) the Agrava Board and
not b) an) police investigator, officer or agenc)E 0rue, the) continued testif)ing. Ma)
that be construed as a %aiver of their rights to re$ain silent and not to be co$pelled
to be a %itness against the$selvesE 0he ans%er is )es, if the) have the option to do
so. But in the light of the first portion of +ection C of P.3. ""4 and the a%eso$e
conte$pt po%er of the Board to punish an) refusal to testif) or produce evidence, De
are not persuaded that %hen the) testified, the) voluntaril) %aived their constitutional
rights not to be co$pelled to be a %itness against the$selves $uch less their right to
re$ain silent.
Co$pulsion as it is understood here does not necessaril) connote
the use of violence< it $a) be the product of unintentional
state$ents. Pressure %hich operates to overbear his %ill, disable
hi$ fro$ $a1ing a free and rational choice, or i$pair his capacit)
3
for rational /udg$ent %ould in our opinion be sufficient. +o is $oral
coercion ?tending to force testi$on) fro$ the un%illing lips of the
defendant.
24

+i$ilarl), in the case of Louis J. Lefkowitz v. Russel
27
0urle)B citing Garrity vs. New
Jersey" %here certain police officers su$$oned to an in,uir) being conducted b) the
Attorne) 6eneral involving the fi2ing of traffic tic1ets %ere as1ed ,uestions follo%ing
a %arning that if the) did not ans%er the) %ould be re$oved fro$ office and that
an)thing the) said $ight be used against the$ in an) cri$inal proceeding, and the
,uestions %ere ans%ered, the ans%ers given cannot over their ob/ection be later
used in their prosecutions for conspirac). 0he :nited +tates +upre$e Court %ent
further in holding that>
the protection of the individuals under the *ourteenth A$end$ent
against coerced state$ents prohibits use in subse,uent
proceedings of state$ents obtained under threat or re$oval fro$
office, and that it e2tends to all, %hether the) are police$en or
other $e$bers of the bod) politic. #"C :+ at CAA, F 9 Ed. C42.
0he Court also held that in the conte2t of threats of re$oval fro$
office the act of responding to interrogation %as not voluntar) and
%as not an effective %aiver of the privilege against self.
incri$ination.
0o buttress their precarious stand and breathe life into a see$ingl) hopeless cause,
petitioners and a$icus curiae 'E2.+enator A$brosio Padilla( assert that the Bright not
to be co$pelled to be a %itness against hi$selfB applies onl) in favor of an accused
in a cri$inal case. ;ence, it $a) not be invo1ed b) an) of the herein private
respondents before the Agrava Board. The Cabal vs. Kapunan
28
doctrine $ilitates
ver) heavil) against this theor). +aid case is not a cri$inal case as its title ver)
clearl) indicates. &t is not People vs. Cabal nor a prosecution for a cri$inal offense.
And )et, %hen Cabal refused to ta1e the stand, to be s%orn and to testif) upon being
called as a %itness for co$plainant Col. Maristela in a forfeiture of illegall) ac,uired
assets, this Court sustained Cabal?s plea that for hi$ to be co$pelled to testif) %ill be
in violation of his right against self. incri$ination. De did not therein state that since
he is not an accused and the case is not a cri$inal case, Cabal cannot refuse to ta1e
the %itness stand and testif), and that he can invo1e his right against self.
incri$ination onl) %hen a ,uestion %hich tends to elicit an ans%er that %ill
incri$inate hi$ is profounded to hi$. Clearl) then, it is not the character of the suit
involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls. 0he privilege has
consistentl) been held to e2tend to all proceedings sanctioned b) la% and to all
cases in %hich punish$ent is sought to be visited upon a %itness, %hether a part) or
not.
29
&f in a $ere forfeiture case %here onl) propert) rights %ere involved, Bthe right
not to be co$pelled to be a %itness against hi$selfB is secured in favor of the
defendant, then %ith $ore reason it cannot be denied to a person facing investigation
before a *act *inding Board %here his life and libert), b) reason of the state$ents to
be given b) hi$, hang on the balance. *urther enlighten$ent on the sub/ect can be
found in the historical bac1ground of this constitutional provision against self.
incri$ination. 0he privilege against self. incri$ination is guaranteed in the *ifth
A$end$ent to the *ederal Constitution. &n the Philippines, the sa$e principle
obtains as a direct result of A$erican influence. At first, the provision in our organic
la%s %ere si$ilar to the Constitution of the :nited +tates and %as as follo%s>
0hat no person shall be ... co$pelled in a cri$inal case to be a
%itness against hi$self.
30

As no% %orded, +ection 2A of Article &7 reads>
No person shall be co$pelled to be a %itness against hi$self.
0he deletion of the phrase Bin a cri$inal caseB connotes no other i$port e2cept to
$a1e said provision also applicable to cases other than cri$inal. 3ecidedl) then, the
right Bnot to be co$pelled to testif) against hi$selfB applies to the herein private
respondents not%ithstanding that the proceedings before the Agrava Board is not, in
its strictest sense, a cri$inal case
No doubt, the private respondents %ere not $erel) denied the afore.discussed
sacred constitutional rights, but also the right to Bdue processB %hich is funda$ental
fairness.
31
Huoting the highl).respected e$inent constitutionalist that once graced
this Court, the for$er Chief -ustice Enri,ue M. *ernando, due process =
... is responsiveness to the supre$ac) of reason, obedience to the
dictates of /ustice. Negativel) put, arbitrariness is ruled out and
unfairness avoided. 0o satisf) the due process re,uire$ent, official
action, to paraphrase Cardo8o, $ust not outrun the bounds of
reason and result in sheer oppression. 3ue process is thus hostile
to an) official action $arred b) lac1 of reasonableness. Correctl), it
has been &dentified as freedo$ fro$ arbitrariness. t is the
e!bo"i!ent of the sportin# "ea of fair play '*ran1furter, Mr.
-ustice ;ol$es and the +upre$e Court, !"#, pp. #2.##(. t e$a%ts
fealty "to those strivin#s for &usti%e an" &u"#es the a%t of
offi%ial"o! of whatever bran%h "in the li#ht of reason "rawn fro!
%onsi"erations of fairness that refle%t '"e!o%rati%( tra"itions of
le#al an" politi%al thou#ht." '*ran1furter, ;annah v. 9arche !4A,
#4# :+ 2A, at G"F(. t is not a narrow or )"e%hni%al %on%eption with
fi$e" %ontent unrelate" to ti!e* pla%e an"
%ir%u!stan%es.B'Cafeteria Dor1ers v. McElro) !4, #4F :+ 2#A(
+e%isions base" on su%h a %lause re,uirin# a )%lose an"
per%eptive in,uiry into fun"a!ental prin%iples of our so%iety.
'-artkus vs. llinois* ./0/* 10/ 23 .4.(. 5uestions of "ue pro%ess
are not to be treate" narrowly or pe"anti%ally in slavery to for! or
phrases. 'Pearson v. Mc6ra%, !#!, #A" :+ ##(.
4
Our revie% of the pleadings and their anne2es, together %ith the oral argu$ents,
$anifestations and ad$issions of both counsel, failed to reveal adherence to and
co$pliance %ith due process. 0he $anner in %hich the testi$onies %ere ta1en fro$
private respondents fall short of the constitutional standards both under the 3:E
PROCE++ C9A:+E and under the EIC9:+&ONAR@ R:9E in +ection 2A, Article &7.
&n the face of such grave constitutional infir$ities, the individual testi$onies of private
respondents cannot be ad$itted against the$ in all) cri$inal proceeding. 0his is true
regardless of absence of clai$ of constitutional privilege or of the presence of a grant
of i$$unit) b) la%. Nevertheless, De shall rule on the effect of such absence of
clai$ to the availabilit) to private respondents of the i$$unit) provided for in +ection
C, P.3. ""4 %hich issue %as s,uarel) raised and e2tensivel) discussed in the
pleadings and oral argu$ents of the parties.
&$$unit) statutes $a) be generall) classified into t%o> one, %hich grants Buse
i$$unit)B< and the other, %hich grants %hat is 1no%n as Btransactional i$$unit).B
0he distinction bet%een the t%o is as follo%s> B:se i$$unit)B prohibits use of
%itness? co$pelled testi$on) and its fruits in an) $anner in connection %ith the
cri$inal prosecution of the %itness. On the other hand, Btransactional i$$unit)B
grants i$$unit) to the %itness fro$ prosecution for an offense to %hich his
co$pelled testi$on) relates.B
32
E2a$ining Presidential 3ecree ""4, $ore
specificall) +ection C thereof, %hich reads>
+EC. C. No person shall be e2cused fro$ attending and testif)ing
or fro$ producing boo1s, records, correspondence, docu$ents, or
other evidence in obedience to a subpoena issued b) the Board on
the ground that his testi$on) or the evidence re,uired of hi$ $a)
tend to incri$inate hi$ or sub/ect hi$ to penalt) or forfeiture< but
his testi$on) or an) evidence produced b) hi$ shall not be used
against hi$ in connection %ith an) transaction, $atter or thing
concerning %hich he is co$pelled, after having invo1ed his
privilege against self.incri$ination, to testif) or produce evidence,
e2cept that such individual so testif)ing shall not be e2e$pt fro$
prosecution and punish$ent for per/ur) co$$itted in so testif)ing,
nor shall he be e2e$pt fro$ de$otion or re$oval fro$ office.
'E$phasis supplied(
it is be)ond dispute that said la% belongs to the first t)pe of i$$unit) statutes. &t
grants $erel) i$$unit) fro$ use of an) state$ent given before the Board, but not
i$$unit) fro$ prosecution b) reason or on the basis thereof. Merel) testif)ing and5or
producing evidence do not render the %itness i$$uned fro$ prosecution
not%ithstanding his invocation of the right against self. incri$ination. ;e is $erel)
saved fro$ the use against hi$ of such state$ent and nothing $ore. +tated
other%ise ... he still runs the ris1 of being prosecuted even if he sets up his right
against self. incri$ination. 0he dictates of fair pla), %hich is the hall$ar1 of due
process, de$ands that private respondents should have been infor$ed of their rights
to re$ain silent and %arned that an) and all state$ents to be given b) the$ $a) be
used against the$. 0his, the) %ere denied, under the pretense that the) are not
entitled to it and that the Board has no obligation to so infor$ the$.
&t is for this reason that %e cannot subscribe to the vie% adopted and urged upon :s
b) the petitioners that the right against self.incri$ination $ust be invo1ed before the
Board in order to prevent use of an) given state$ent against the testif)ing %itness in
a subse,uent cri$inal prosecution. A literal interpretation fashioned upon :s is
repugnant to Article &7, +ection 2A of the Constitution, %hich is the first test of
ad$issibilit). &t reads>
No person shall be co$pelled to be a %itness against hi$self. An)
person under investigation for the co$$ission of an offense shall
have the right to re$ain silent and to counsel, and to be infor$ed
of such right. No force, violence, threat, inti$idation, or an) other
$eans %hich vitiates the free %ill shall be used against hi$. An)
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inad$issible in evidence. 'E$phasis supplied(
0he afore,uoted provision renders inad$issible an) confession obtained in violation
thereof. As herein earlier discussed, this e2clusionar) rule applies not onl) to
confessions but also to ad$issions,
33
%hether $ade b) a %itness in an) proceeding
or b) an accused in a cri$inal proceeding or an) person under investigation for the
co$$ission of an offense. An) interpretation of a statute %hich %ill give it a $eaning
in conflict %ith the Constitution $ust be avoided. +o $uch so that if t%o or $ore
constructions or interpretations could possibl) be resorted to, then that one %hich %ill
avoid unconstitutionalit) $ust be adopted even though it $a) be necessar) for this
purpose to disregard the $ore usual and apparent i$port of the language used.
33
0o
save the statute fro$ a declaration of unconstitutionalit) it $ust be given a
reasonable construction that %ill bring it %ithin the funda$ental la%.
35
Apparent
conflict bet%een t%o clauses should be har$oni8ed.
34

But a literal application of a re,uire$ent of a clai$ of the privilege against self.
incri$ination as a condition sine ,ua non to the grant of i$$unit) presupposes that
fro$ a la)$an?s point of vie%, he has the option to refuse to ans%er ,uestions and
therefore, to $a1e such clai$. P.3. ""4, ho%ever, forecloses such option of refusal
b) i$posing sanctions upon its e2ercise, thus>
+EC. G. 0he Board $a) hold an) person in direct or indirect
conte$pt, and i$pose appropriate penalties therefor. A person
guilt) of .... including ... refusal to be s%orn or to ans%er as a
%itness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition %hen la%full)
re,uired to do so $a) be su$$aril) ad/udged in direct conte$pt
b) the Board. ...
+uch threat of punish$ent for $a1ing a clai$ of the privilege leaves the %itness no
choice but to ans%er and thereb) forfeit the i$$unit) purportedl) granted b) +ec. C.
5
0he absurdit) of such application is apparent +ec. C re,uires a clai$ %hich it,
ho%ever, forecloses under threat of conte$pt proceedings against an)one %ho
$a1es such clai$. But the strong testi$onial co$pulsion i$posed b) +ection C of
P.3. ""4 vie%ed in the light of the sanctions provided in +ection G,infringes upon the
%itness? right against self.incri$ination. As a rule, such infringe$ent of the
constitutional right renders inoperative the testi$onial co$pulsion, $eaning, the
%itness cannot be co$pelled to ans%er :N9E++ a co.e2tensive protection in the
for$ of &MM:N&0@ is offered.
37
;ence, under the oppressive co$pulsion of P.3.
""4, i$$unit) $ust in fact be offered to the %itness before he can be re,uired to
ans%er, so as to safeguard his sacred constitutional right. But in this case, the
co$pulsion has alread) produced its desired results the private respondents had all
testified %ithout offer of i$$unit). 0heir constitutional rights are therefore, in
/eopard). 0he onl) %a) to cure the la% of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it
in the $anner as if &MM:N&0@ had in fact been offered. De hold, therefore, that in
vie% of the potent sanctions i$posed on the refusal to testif) or to ans%er ,uestions
under +ec. G of P.3. ""4, the testi$onies co$pelled thereb) are dee$ed
i$$uni8ed under +ection C of the sa$e la%. 0he applicabilit) of the i$$unit)
granted b) P.3. ""4 cannot be $ade to depend on a clai$ of the privilege against
self.incri$ination %hich the sa$e la% practicall) strips a%a) fro$ the %itness.
Dith the stand %e ta1e on the issue before :s, and considering the te$per of the
ti$es, %e run the ris1 of being consigned to unpopularit). Conscious as %e are of,
but undaunted b), the frightening conse,uences that hover before :s, %e have
strictl) adhered to the Constitution in upholding the rule of la% finding solace in the
vie% ver) aptl) articulated b) that %ell.1no%n civil libertarian and ad$ired defender
of hu$an rights of this Court, Mr. -ustice Claudio 0eehan1ee, in the case of People
vs. 6analan#
38
and %e ,uote>
& a$ co$pletel) conscious of the need for a balancing of the
interests of societ) %ith the rights and freedo$s of the individuals. &
have advocated the balancing.of.interests rule in an situations
%hich call for an appraisal of the interpla) of conflicting interests of
conse,uential di$ensions. But & re/ect an) proposition that %ould
blindl) uphold the interests of societ) at the sacrifice of the dignit)
of an) hu$an being. 'E$phasis supplied(
9est %e be $isunderstood, let it be 1no%n that %e are not b) this disposition passing
upon the guilt or innocence of the herein private respondents an issue %hich is
before the +andiganba)an. De are $erel) resolving a ,uestion of la% and the
pronounce$ent herein $ade applies to all si$ilarl) situated, irrespective of one?s
ran1 and status in societ).
&N 7&ED O* 0;E *ORE6O&N6 CON+&3ERA0&ON+ and finding the instant petitions
%ithout $erit, sa$e are 3&+M&++E3. No pronounce$ent as to costs.
+O OR3ERE3.
6