GR L 29169; (August, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968
ROGER CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE WARDEN OF THE CITY JAIL OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roger Chavez was one of several accused charged with qualified theft of a Thunderbird car. During the trial, the prosecution called Chavez as its first witness. His counsel objected, arguing it was a surprise and would incriminate his client. The trial court overruled the objection, stating the prosecution had the right to call any witness, including an accused, and assured counsel that objections could be made to specific incriminating questions. Chavez was then sworn in and testified. He was subsequently convicted. His appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to file a brief. Chavez then filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, arguing he was denied his constitutional right against self-incrimination when he was compelled to testify against himself. In the alternative, he sought certiorari to annul the dismissal of his appeal and mandamus to direct the Court of Appeals to forward his appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Roger Chavez was denied his constitutional right against self-incrimination when he was called and compelled to testify as a witness for the prosecution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the constitutional right against self-incrimination is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a person, but it does not prohibit a witness from being compelled to take the stand. The right is merely against being compelled to be a witness against oneself; it is not a prohibition against being a witness altogether. A defendant who chooses to take the stand waives the privilege and may be cross-examined like any other witness. In this case, Chavez took the stand as a witness for the prosecution. He was sworn in and gave testimony. By taking the oath and testifying, he waived his privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to call him as a witness. The Court also found no merit in the alternative remedies of certiorari and mandamus.