Pascual vs.

Board of Medical Examiners Case Digest

Facts:

Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton filed an administrative case against Arsenio Pascual Jr.
for alleged immorality. At the initial hearing thereof, Gatbonton’s counsel announced that he would
present Pascual as his first witness. Pascual objected, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt
from being a witness against himself. The Board of Examiners took note of such a plea but scheduled
Pascual to testify in the next hearing unless in the meantime he could secure a restraining order from a
competent authority. Pascual filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition
with prayer for preliminary injunction against the Board of Medical Examiners. The lower court ordered
that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the Board commanding it to refrain from hearing or
further proceeding with such an administrative case and to await the judicial disposition of the matter.
Subsequently, a decision was rendered by the lower court finding the claim of Pascual to be well-
founded and prohibiting the Board "from compelling the petitioner to act and testify as a witness for the
complainant in said investigation without his consent and against himself." Hence, the Board appealed.

Issue:

Whether a medical practitioner charged with malpractice in administrative case can avail of the
constitutional guarantee not to be a witness against himself.

Held:

Yes. The case for malpractice and cancellation of the license to practice medicine while administrative in
character possesses a criminal or penal aspect. An unfavorable decision would result in the revocation of
the license of the respondent to practice medicine. Consequently, he can refuse to take the witness
stand.

The right against self-incrimination extends not only to right to refuse to answer questions put to the
accused while on witness stand, but also to forgo testimony, to remain silent and refuse to take the
witness stand when called by as a witness by the prosecution. The reason is that the right against self
incrimination, along with the other rights granted to the accused, stands for a belief that while a crime
should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objective should not be
accomplished according to means and methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the
human personality.