Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7013)
Facts:
Eliseo Fernando v. Honorable Enrique Maglanoc, et al., G.R. No. L-7013, July 26, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Pablo, M., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Eliseo Fernando, a former Huk who had surrendered and was then held in preventive detention in the provincial jail of Nueva Ecija, was subpoenaed to testify in the criminal case The People of the Philippines v. Lopez Rayos and another, No. 2672, pending before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for robbery with homicide.When called, Fernando testified that he had seen Manuel Jacinto before and after Jacinto was killed on the night of October 26, 1951; that he knew who killed Jacinto; that he knew that the "Commander" Joe had given the order to the killers; and that on the night in question he was a member of the Hukbalahap organization. In response to the prosecutor’s question, "Why were you there?", Fernando refused to answer, asserting the response would be self‑incriminatory and asking not to be compelled to reply.
The trial judge, Honorable Enrique Maglanoc, denied Fernando’s claim of privilege and ordered him to answer; a motion for reconsideration by Fernando’s counsel was likewise denied. Counsel then moved for suspension of the trial to permit Fernando to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The prosecutor submitted that the trial court had not abused its discretion and argued the modern rule that the trial court should first determine the privilege rather than leave the decision solely to the witness. The record before the Supreme Court consisted of Fernando’s sworn application, the prosecution’s answer admitting the factual allegations set out in the trial court’s order of August 24, 1953, and a copy of that order.
The Supreme Court examined those admitted facts and concluded that, on their face, a truthful answer to the challenged qu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner Fernando could lawfully be compelled to answer the prosecutor’s question on the ground that the answer would be self‑incriminating.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Fernando’s claim of privilege and ordering him to answer (and in denyin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)