Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19052)
Facts:
Manuel F. Cabal v. Hon. Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and the City Fiscal of Manila, G.R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc. (Ponente not indicated in the source text.)On or about August 2, 1961, Col. Jose C. Maristela filed with the Secretary of National Defense a letter-complaint accusing petitioner Manuel F. Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, of unexplained wealth and other misconduct. On September 6, 1961, the President created a five‑member Presidential Committee (chaired by former Justice Marceliano R. Montemayor and including former Justices Ocampo and Cabahug and Generals Valdez and Francisco) to investigate the unexplained-wealth charge and report recommendations.
During the Committee’s investigation, on September 15, 1961, and at complainant Maristela’s request, the Committee ordered Cabal to take the witness stand and be sworn as a witness for Maristela. Cabal, personally and through counsel, objected and refused, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination; the Committee insisted he be sworn but said he could refuse to answer incriminatory questions. Cabal persisted in refusing to be sworn. The Committee thereupon (September 18, 1961) referred the matter to the City Fiscal of Manila.
On September 28, 1961 the City Fiscal filed a “charge” in the Court of First Instance (docketed Criminal Case No. 60111, Branch XVIII) accusing Cabal with contempt under Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code in relation to Sections 1 and 7, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, for refusing to obey the Committee’s order to take the stand. Respondent Judge Kapunan issued an order to show cause on October 2, 1961. Cabal moved to quash on October 4, 1961, arguing (inter alia) lack of authority/personality of the City Fiscal to file the charge, absence of preliminary investigation if criminal, vagueness and multiplicity of offenses under Section 580, and that the Committee had no power to compel taking the stand because of Cabal’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. By resolution dated October 14, 1961, the trial judge denied the motion to quash.
On October 20, 1961, Cabal filed an original petition in the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to restrain Judge Kapunan from proceeding in Criminal Case No. 60111 and to set aside the order and proceedings. The respondents answered, contending the Committee’s investigation was administrative (...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is certiorari/prohibition appropriate to restrain the trial judge from proceeding in Criminal Case No. 60111?
- Were the proceedings before the Presidential Committee (and the contemplated contempt/forfeiture consequences) civil or criminal/quasi-criminal in character so as to permit petitioner to refuse to take the witness stand under the constitutional privile...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)