G.R. No. L-5924; October 28, 1953
ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. and ENRIQUE J. C. MONTILLA, petitioners, vs. JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ELIAS JEREOS, and heirs of Jose Yulo, namely, ALICIA YULO DE LAUREL, HERMINIA YULO DE VILLA, CONCHITA YULO DE JALANDONI, and MARIA FE VDA. DE YULO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique J. C. Montilla and his relatives owned over 95% of the shares of petitioner Isabela Sugar Co., Inc., while respondents owned only about 1/20 of 1%. The company was indebted to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). During the Japanese occupation, Montilla paid this obligation in Japanese military notes in his private capacity. After liberation, PNB agreed to recognize 60% of the payment as valid. The company’s stockholders passed resolutions recognizing this amount, and later the full amount, as a company obligation to Montilla. Respondents filed a civil case alleging Montilla should only recover the actual, depreciated value of the military notes paid. During the taking of Montilla’s deposition, respondents’ counsel asked two questions: (1) whether he bought a property in Pennsylvania on December 7, 1943, for P65,278.50 in Japanese notes and sold it on October 11, 1944, for P200,000, thereby making a profit; and (2) whether he paid any war profit tax on the sale of three properties. Montilla’s counsel objected, primarily on the ground that the questions tended to incriminate him. Respondent Judge Macadaeg initially ruled the first question was not immaterial or irrelevant but the second was incriminatory. Upon reconsideration, the judge ruled the first question was not incriminatory and that it was too late to invoke the constitutional privilege. Petitioners seek to annul these orders via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge violated petitioner Montilla’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by compelling him to answer the first question regarding the purchase and sale price of the Pennsylvania property during the deposition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ, annulled the orders complained of, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The first question had a tendency to incriminate Montilla within the meaning of the constitutional privilege. The question, by eliciting the purchase price after Montilla had already stated the sale price, would directly admit to making a profit, which is an element of the offense under the War Profit Tax Law ( Republic Act No. 55 ). The privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to disclose any fact that could form a necessary part of a crime, even if the fact alone is insufficient for conviction. The Court rejected the argument that the privilege was waived, noting that Montilla’s previous answers of “I do not remember” to questions about the property constituted a refusal to answer, not a waiver. The respondent judge therefore erred in compelling an answer to the incriminatory question.