Cabal v. Kapunan

MANUEL F. CABAL v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN Motion to quash denied.
[ GR No. L-19052, Dec 29, 1962 ]

In their answer, respondents herein allege, inter alia, that
One liner: Proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed the investigation being conducted by the Committee above referred
criminal or penal, and hence, the exemption of defendants in to is administrative, not criminal, in nature; that the legal provision
criminal cases from the obligation to be witness against themselves relied upon by petitioner in relation to preliminary investigations is
are applicable thereto. inapplicable to contempt proceedings.
Facts: Issue:
WON the proceedings before the aforementioned Committee is civil
Col. Jose C. Maristela of the Philippine Army filed with the or criminal in character such that if it is criminal, then the right to
Secretary of Nation Defense a letter-complaint charging petitioner self-incrimination is applicable. (ANS: Forfeiture proceedings are
Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the criminal in character although technically a civil proceeding;
Philippines, with "graft, corrupt practices, unexplained wealth, defendants may invoke right to self-incrimination)
conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman dictatorial
tendencies, giving false statements of his assets and liabilities in 1958 Ruling:
and other equally reprehensible acts". The following month, the
President of the Philippines created a committee of five (5) members Although the said Committee was created to investigate the
to investigate the charge of unexplained wealth contained in said administrative charge of unexplained wealth, it seems that the
letter-complaint and submit its report and recommendations as soon purpose of the charge against petitioner is to apply the provisions of
as possible. the Anti-Graft Law, which authorizes the forfeiture to the State of
property of a public officer or employee which is manifestly out of
The Committee ordered petitioner herein to take the proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and his
witness stand in the administrative proceeding and be sworn to as other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
witness for Maristela, in support of his aforementioned charge of property. However, such forfeiture has been held to partake of the
unexplained wealth. Petitioner objected to the order of the nature of a penalty. As a consequence, proceedings for forfeiture of
Committee, invoking his constitutional right against self- property are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence, the exemption of
incrimination. The Committee insisted that petitioner take the defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses
witness stand and be sworn to, subject to his right to refuse to answer against themselves are applicable thereto.
such questions as may be incriminatory. This notwithstanding,
petitioner respectfully refused to be sworn to as a witness to take the It has frequently been held upon constitutional grounds
witness stand. under the various State Constitution, that a witness or party called as
witness cannot be made to testify against himself as to matters which
The Committee referred the matter to the Fiscal of Manila, would subject his property to forfeiture.
for such action as he may deem proper. The City Fiscal filed with the
Court of First Instance of Manila a "charge" of contempt for failing to In Boyd vs. U.S. (116 U.S. 616, 29 L. ed., 746), it was held
obey the order of the Committee to take the witness stand. The that the information, in a proceeding to declare a forfeiture of certain
"charge" was assigned to the sala of respondent Judge Kapunan. property because of the evasion of a certain revenue law, “though
Petitioner filed with respondent Judge a motion to quash, on the technically a civil proceeding, is in substance and effect a criminal
following grounds: one”, and that suits for penalties and forfeitures are within the reason
of criminal proceedings for the purposes of that portion of the Fifth
(1) that the City Fiscal has neither authority nor Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. which declares that no
personality to file said char and the same is null and person shall be compelled in a criminal to be a witness against
void, for, if criminal, the charge has been filed without himself.
a preliminary investigation, and, civil, the City Fiscal
may not file it, his authority in respect of civil cases In this case, while it is an administrative proceeding, it is
being limited to representing the City of Manila; (2) criminal in nature in the sense that if he be found guilty, he stands the
that the facts charged constitute no offense for section risk of his property being forfeited and be dismissed from service.
580 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon which Thus, he may not be forced to take the witness stand like an accused
the charge is based, violates due process, in that it is in a criminal case.
vague and uncertain as regards the offense therein
defined and the fine imposable therefor and that it fail
to specify whether said offense shall be treated also
contempt of an inferior court or of a superior court (3)
that more than one offense is charged, for the
contempt imputed to petitioner is sought to be
punished as contempt of an inferior court, as contempt
of a superior court an as contempt under section 7 of
Rule 64 of the Rules Court; (4) that the Committee had
no power to order an require petitioner to take the
witness stand and be sworn to, upon the request of Col.
Maristela, as witness for the latter, inasmuch as said
order violates petitioner's constitutional right against
self-incrimination.

Cabal v. Kapunan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabal v. Kapunan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabal v. Kapunan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANUEL F. CABAL v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN Motion to quash denied.

[ GR No. L-19052, Dec 29, 1962 ]

You might also like