ARSENIO PASCUAL JR vs.

BOARD OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS

G.R. No. L-25018
May 26, 1969

FAC TS:
During the trial for administrative case for alleged immorality
and malpractice against Arsenio Pascual, the counsel of the
complainant for the said case presented him as a witness. However
Arsenio through his counsel made objection, relying on the
constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against
himself. Respondent board took notice of the objection and at the
same time stating that on the next schedule of the hearing Arsenio
will be called again as witness.

Arsenio file a petition for writ of preliminary injuction and

prohibition that he be exempt to be presented as witness which the
lower court immediately granted and posting a bond amounting Php
500.

In response the respondent invoke that, the right against self-

incrimination being available only when a question calling for a
incriminating answer is asked of a witness. It further elaborated the
matter in the affirmative defenses interposed, stating that Arsenio’s
remedy is to object once he is in the witness stand, for respondet “a
plain speedy and adequate remedy isn the ordinary course of law”
precluding the issueance of the relief sought. Respondent denied that
it acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:
Whether a medical practitioner charged with malpractice in
administrative case can avail of the constitutional guarantee not to be
a witness against himself.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of prohibition of
thelower court and reiterate its decision in Cabal vs Kapunan stating
“The right against self-incrimination extends not only to right to
refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on witness stand”
in addition the Supreme Court further explained that “We conclude
xxx that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment has
been absorbed in the Fourteenth, that it extends its protection to
lawyers as well as to other individuals, and that it should not be
watered down by imposing the dishonor of disbarment and the
deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it." We reiterate
that such a principle is equally applicable to a proceeding that could
possibly result in the loss of the privilege to practice the medical
profession. And "The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and
his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt."