Or subject him to a penalty or fo몭eiture but his

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 21 pages.

or subject him to a penalty or fo몭eiture: but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in criminal prosecution based on the transaction, ma몭er or thing concerning which is compelled, a몭er invoking his privilege against self- incrimination to testify or produce evidence. Provided, however, that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury commi몭ed in so testifying nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from o몭ce. Any employee who refuses to testify or produce any documents under this Act shall be dismissed from the service." Suppose fu몭her, that Ong, a member of the Professional Regulatory Board, is required to answer questions in an investigation regarding a LEAKAGE in a medical examination. 1. Can Ong refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate himself? 2. Suppose he refuses to answer, and for that reason, is dismissed from the service; can he pausibly argue that the Civil Commission has inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer in violation of the Constitution? 3. Suppose on the other hand, he answers the question and on the basis of his answers, he is found guilty and is dismissed. Can he pausibly asse몭 that his dismissa1 is based on coerced confession? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. No. Ong cannot refuse to answer the question on the ground that he would incriminate himself, since the Jaw grants him immunity and prohibits the use against him in a criminal prosecution of the testimony or evidence produced by him. As stated by the United States Supreme Cou몭 in Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S.591, 597, what the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination seeks to prevent is the conviction of the witness on the basis of testimony elicited from him. The rule is satis몭ed when he is granted immunity.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1. In accordance with Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99, 107-108, if Ong is being cited merely as a witness, he may not refuse to answer. However, if the question tends to violate his right against self-incrimination, he may object to it. On the other hand, under the ruling in Chavez vs. Cou몭 of Appeals. 24 SCRA 663, 680, if be is a respondent, Ong may refuse to answer any question because of his right against self-incrimination. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture