G.R. No. L-19052. December 29, 1962
MANUEL F. CABAL, petitioner, vs. HON. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., and THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel F. Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, was charged before a Presidential Committee investigating allegations of unexplained wealth. Upon complainant’s request, the Committee ordered Cabal to take the witness stand and be sworn in as a witness for the complainant. Cabal objected, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The Committee insisted he be sworn subject to his right to refuse incriminatory questions, but Cabal refused to take the stand. The Committee referred the matter to the City Fiscal of Manila.
The City Fiscal filed a charge for contempt under Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging Cabal willfully disobeyed the Committee’s lawful order. Respondent Judge Kapunan issued an order to show cause. Cabal filed a motion to quash, arguing, inter alia, that the order violated his right against self-incrimination. The motion was denied, prompting Cabal to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition to restrain the contempt proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Presidential Committee’s order for Cabal to take the witness stand as a witness for the complainant violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination, thereby rendering the contempt charge based on his refusal invalid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the contempt proceedings. The Court held that the investigation, though administrative in form, was in substance criminal or quasi-criminal for the purpose of applying the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The right protects an individual from being compelled to be a witness against himself in any proceeding where the possible penalty or forfeiture is punitive in character, intended to vindicate public justice.
The logic is that the privilege applies not merely to technically criminal prosecutions but to any proceeding where the nature of the penalty or the objective is essentially penal. Here, the investigation into “unexplained wealth” could lead to forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 , which are penal in nature. Compelling Cabal to take the stand as a witness for his accuser at the initial stage would force him to undergo a preliminary interrogation that could furnish evidence against him in a subsequent criminal or forfeiture case. The right includes the privilege to refuse to take the witness stand at all in such a proceeding, not merely the right to refuse to answer specific incriminatory questions once sworn.
Since the Committee’s order infringed this fundamental right, Cabal’s refusal to obey was justified. Consequently, the basis for the contempt charge—disobedience of a lawful order—collapsed, as the order itself was unlawful for violating the Constitution. The contempt proceedings in the lower court were therefore void.