Chavez V. Ca (sulit).docx

Chavez v. CA G.R. No. L-29169 – 19 Aug 1968 J Sanchez Topic: Right against self incrimination FACTS: ● Chavez argues that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and to be released from imprisonment because he was deprived of his constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against himself. ● He was indicted of qualified theft of a motor vehicle. It was a Thunderbird car which together with its accessories worth P22,200.00. ● 41 November, 1962: in Quezon City, Chavez along with other people accused for the crime, conspired with intent of gain, abuse of confidence and without the consent of the owner thereof, Dy, to take the Thunderbird. ● All the accused plead not guilty upon arraignment. ● 23 July 1963: Trial in CFI QC. Chavez was presented as a witness for the prosecution his defense lawyer objected saying he was surprised. He was not even informed by the fiscal that Chavez would be a witness for the prosecution. He objected because it would incriminate Chavez. The judge asked the fiscal if he would be withdrawing the information against Chavez making him a state witness. The fiscal denied this and said that he is just an ordinary witness. The judge gave the counsel 15 mins to confer with Chavez and explain to him the implications of being a witness for the prosecution. When the trial resumed the counsel said that Chavez would no longer testify because he has a right against self incrimination. The judge rejected this however and said that the prosecution has the right to present any witness it chooses even the accused. There is no guarantee naman that the info the witness will be asked to testify on will incriminate him. If the question asked of the witness is incriminating in nature the counsel can state his objection and the judge will sustain him. And so the cross examination of witness Chavez began. ● Super short Version of the facts acc to the prosecution based on Chavez testimony (the facts of the crime are not important to the constitutional issue kasi): ○ Chavez conspired with Sumilang and Asistio to make money by stealing a Thunderbird car under the guise of buying it. Chavez introduce Sumilang as a buyer to Lee, the brother of the owner Dy, and they agreed on the purchase of the Thunderbird. Once the Deed of Sale was signed they went to a restaurant for the payment. Sumilang (who was an actor) left the table for a bit to take pics with fans while Chavez said he was just gonna buy cigarettes then they drove away with the Thunderbird without paying Dy cus they had the Deed of Sale na. Tapos they repainted and impounded the car for profit. ● The version of the facts that the court believed because it was corroborated and had evidence (this cleared Sumilang and Asistio): ○ Chavez told Sumilang about the Thunderbird for sale and Sumilang wanted to buy but had no money so Sumilang borrowed money from many different people. Chavez introduced Sumilang to Lee and they agreed on the purchase price. Sumilang told Lee na he paid some of the downpayment na to Chavez (which he did naman talaga). Chavez asked Sumilang for the balance and Sumilang gave it to him (Chavez was acting like some sort of agent). Chavez was also asked to sign a receipt of the money and 2 other ppl signed rin as witnesses. At the restaurant Lee and Sumilang shook hands and Sumilang drove off with the car. He eventually sold it to Asistio who gave him a downpayment of 1,000 php but never paid him the balance. Court said that if Lee did not receive any money that is Chavez’s fault na.

● ●

Trial Court called him a self confessed culprit and said: "Roger Chavez does not offer any defense. As a matter of fact, his testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." All of the accused were freed except for Chavez who was convicted of qualified theft

ISSUES: W/N Chavez was denied his right against self incrimination: YES!! ● "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," ● Section 1, Rule 115, Roc: in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant shall be entitled: "(e) To be exempt from being a witness against himself." . ● This concept originates from the English and American justice systems which rejected the inquisitorial nature of making the accused a witness against himself because he can very easily be backed into a corner and intimidated. ● Mr. Justice Malcolm: this maxim was recognized in England in the early days "in a revolt against the thumbscrew and the rack." ● adopted in the Philippines "to wipe out such practices as formerly prevailed in these Islands of requiring accused persons to submit to judicial examinations, and to give testimony regarding the offenses with which they were charged." ● Mr. Justice Harlan warned that "[t]he constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well as the innocent and foresighted." ● This right is MANDATORY and is not a mere procedural rule. ● Public Policy: it would place the witness against the strongest temptation to commit perjury, ● Humanity: it would be to extort a confession of truth by a kind of duress every species and degree of which the law abhors. ● “Therefore, the court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor may a court as much as resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts usable against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to prove the commission of a crime. Because, it is his right to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will.” ● This is moral coercion. Compulsion does not alway require the use of violence. The very pressure will impair the accused’s capacity for rational judgement and may forcer out the testimony from his unwilling lips. ● Chavez was denied his right against self incrimination. He was presented as a witness even when he invoked his right against self incrimination and clearly said he would not testify. Still the lower court sided with the prosecution saying they have the right to present any witness of their choosing. He was clearly denied his right. ● Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, and accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. ● The purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him. The rule positively prohibits the inhuman procedure of compelling a person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction." Also applies to a co-defendant in a joint trial. ● "is not the probability of the evidence but it is the capability of abuse."So it was wrong for the judge to tell the accused and his lawyer that there was no guarantee naman that the question asked would be incriminating. The judge was also a figure of authority and when he said that Chavez had to take the witness stand there was a coercive force on Chavez. Constitutionally sound consent was absent. ● Prejudice against Chavez was seen on record what he was asked was to affirm the testimony he gave to the NBI and they asked him to detail his conspiracy with Sumilang and Asistio. ● The decision convicting Roger Chavez was clearly of the view that the case for the People was built primarily around the admissions of Chavez himself. The trial court described

● ●

● ● ●

●

Chavez as the "star witness for the prosecution". The damaging facts in the decision were drawn directly from the lips of Chavez as a prosecution witness and of course Ricardo Sumilang for the defense.The decision itself said that Chavez’s "testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that Chavez is "a selfconfessed culprit". It doesn't matter that the accused did not keep invoking his right, the objection made at the very start is a continuing one. There is therefore no waiver of the privilege. "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" of fundamental constitutional rights and that we "do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Renuntiatio non praesumitur. W/N Chavez is entitled to a writ of Habeas Corpus: YES Case presents a clear picture of disregard of a constitutional right so Habeas Corpus is absolutely proper. The denial of his constitutional right renders the conviction VOID. "A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The parties attempting to enforce it may be responsible as trespassers. ... " Chavez’s detention then has no legal ground and he is entitled to the writ.

RULING: Favor Chavez. Order warden to release him unless he is detained for reasons other than the conviction