Chavez vs.

CA

Facts: Judgment of conviction was for qualified theft of a motor vehicle(thunderbird car together with accessories).
An information was filed against the accused together with other accused,that they conspired, with intent to gain and
abuse of confidence without theconsent of owner Dy Lim, took the vehicle.All the accused plead not guilty. During
the trial, the fiscal grecia (prosecution) asked roger Chavez to be thefirst witness. Counsel of the accused opposed.
Fiscal Grecia contends that the accused (Chavez) will only be an ordinary witness not an state witness. Counsel of
accused answer that it will only incriminate his client. But the jugde ruled in favor of the fiscal.
Petitioner was convicted.

ISSUE: Whether or not constitutional right of Chavez against self incrimination had been violated to warrant
writ of HC?

HELD: YES. Petitioner was forced to testify to incriminate himself, in full breach of his constitutional right to
remain silent. It cannot be said now that he has waived his right. He did not volunteer to take the stand and in his
own defense; he did not offer himself as a witness;
Juxtaposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore adverted to, make waiver a shaky defense. It cannot stand.
If, by his own admission, defendant proved his guilt, still, his original claim remains valid. For the privilege, we say
again, is a rampart that gives protection even to the guilty

Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an exceptional remedy to release a
person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the accuseds constitutional rights are disregarded .
Such defect results in the absence or loss of jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent
conviction of the accused whose fundamental right was violated. That void judgment of conviction may be
challenged by collateral attack, which precisely is the function of habeas corpus. This writ may issue even if
another remedy which is less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure by the accused to perfect
his appeal before the Court of Appeals does not preclude a recourse to the writ. The writ may be granted upon a
judgment already final. For, as explained in Johnson vs. Zerbst, the writ of habeas corpus as an extraordinary
remedy must be liberally given effect so as to protect well a person whose liberty is at stake. The propriety of the
writ was given the nod in that case, involving a violation of another constitutional right, in this wise:
A courts jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the course of the proceedings due to failure to
complete the court as the Sixth Amendment requires by providing Counsel for an accused who is unable to
obtain Counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If
this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The
judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may
obtain release of habeas corpus.

Under our own Rules of Court, to grant the remedy to the accused Roger Chavez whose case presents a clear picture
of disregard of a constitutional right is absolutely proper. Section 1 of Rule 102 extends the writ, unless otherwise
expressly provided by law, to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.