Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29169)
Key Individuals and Context
• Roger Chavez – co-defendant and car agent, later petitioner in habeas corpus proceeding
• Dy Sun Hiok y Lim and Johnson Lee – owner and vendor of the Thunderbird car
• Ricardo Sumilang (alias “Romeo Vasquez”), Luis Asistio, and others – co-accused implicated in the alleged scheme
Petitioner
Roger Chavez, convicted of qualified theft of a Thunderbird motor vehicle, seeks relief by habeas corpus on the ground that he was compelled to testify against himself.
Respondents
The Court of Appeals (which dismissed Chavez’s appeal), The People of the Philippines (prosecution), and the Warden of the City Jail of Manila.
Key Dates
• November 14, 1962 – alleged date of the conspiratorial theft
• July 23, 1963 – commencement of trial before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch IX)
• February 1, 1965 – trial court judgment convicting Chavez alone of qualified theft
• March 8, 1965 – promulgation of sentence (indeterminate prison term, indemnity, accessory penalties)
• December 28, 1967–January 27, 1968 – lapse of period to file brief in Court of Appeals
• April 18, 1968 – notice to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed as abandoned
• May 14 & June 21, 1968 – resolutions dismissing Chavez’s appeal for failure to file brief
• August 19, 1968 – decision of the Supreme Court granting habeas corpus relief
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1(18): privilege against self-incrimination (“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”)
• Rule 115, Section 1(e), Rules of Court: entitlement of an accused to be exempt from being a witness against himself
• Rule 102, Section 1, Rules of Court: scope of the writ of habeas corpus for illegal confinement
Factual Background
Roger Chavez, together with Sumilang and Asistio, orchestrated a plan to present Sumilang as a bona fide buyer of Johnson Lee’s Thunderbird, execute a deed of sale, then abscond with the vehicle and register it in third parties’ names. After collecting down payments via checks and collusive financiers, they induced Lee and Dy Sun Hiok into a notarial sale. At the restaurant where payment was to occur, Chavez and Sumilang disappeared, taking the car. The vehicle was later recovered repainted and impounded by the NBI. Subsequent resale by Asistio led to his acquittal and that of Sumilang, who produced evidence of actual payment. Only Chavez offered no defense and his testimony under compulsion formed the primary basis for convicting him.
Procedural History
During the first day of trial, the prosecution called Chavez as its first witness. Defense counsel objected, invoking Chavez’s right not to be compelled to testify, but the trial judge insisted on calling him to the stand and assured counsel that incriminating questions would be objected to “as they arise.” Chavez nonetheless testified freely, identifying himself as participant in the theft scheme. The trial court found his testimony self-incriminating and convicting, sentencing him to an indeterminate term and ordering indemnity and accessory penalties. He appealed but his counsel failed to file a brief; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as abandoned. Chavez then petitioned this Court for habeas corpus.
Issue
Whether Chavez’s right under the Constitution not to be compelled to testify against himself was violated when the trial court required him to take the witness stand as a prosecution witness and allowed his self-incriminating admissions into evidence.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court held that com
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29169)
Facts of the Case
- In Criminal Case No. Q-5311 before Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, petitioner Roger Chavez and nine co-accused—including Ricardo Sumilang alias “Romeo Vasquez” and Luis Asistio alias “Baby” Asistio—were charged by a third amended information with qualified theft of a Thunderbird motor vehicle (Motor No. H9YH-143003, Plate No. H-16648, Pasay City ’62) valued at ₱22,200.00, belonging to Dy Sun Hiok y Lim.
- The information alleged that on or about November 14, 1962 in Quezon City the accused conspired, with intent to gain and by abuse of confidence, to asport the car without the owner’s consent.
- Upon arraignment all identified accused pleaded not guilty; three Doe defendants remained at large.
- Trial opened on July 23, 1963. Without prior notice, the prosecution called Chavez—one of the accused—as its first witness, prompting defense counsel’s objection on grounds of surprise and self-incrimination.
- The trial judge granted fifteen minutes for counsel to confer but ruled that “the prosecution has the right to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness-stand including the accused,” and refused to defer direct examination.
Procedural History
- February 1, 1965: The Court of First Instance rendered judgment convicting Chavez of qualified theft and acquitting the other accused. Chavez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 10 years, 1 day to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, ordered to indemnify Dy Sun Hiok and/or Johnson Lee ₱21,000.00, and to pay costs. The Thunderbird was released to Sumilang with instructions on the ₱1,000.00 down payment.
- Chavez appealed to the Court of Appeals. His counsel received notice to file a brief by December 28, 1967 but failed to do so.
- April 18, 1968: The Court of Appeals required counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
- May 14, 1968: Appeal dismissed for abandon