Dear PAO,
I am connected with a certain company primarily engaged in internet gaming. Unfortunately, anomalies involving this kind of industry recently made headlines, prompting the government to order the stoppage of the operations of these companies. Criminal cases were filed against the owners, officers, and workers. Some received subpoenas as witnesses, while others were charged with certain crimes. My question is: Assuming I receive a subpoena as a witness in a criminal case or am implicated as an accused in a certain crime, can I invoke the right against self-incrimination so as not to comply with the subpoena? Alternatively, can I invoke the privilege not to answer any question directed at me?
Jestino
Dear Jestino,
The right against self-incrimination is enshrined under Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It provides that: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
Relative thereto, one of the rights of the accused during the trial, as specified under Section 1 (e), Rule 115 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the right “[t]o be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.”
Persons who may invoke this right may be an ordinary witness or an accused in a criminal case. The pronouncement in the case of Rosete et al. v. Lim and Lim, GR 136051, June 8, 2006, under the ponencia of Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, is enlightening:
“The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.”
The Supreme Court went further and said that:
“An accused ‘occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness.’ Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is entitled, among others —
“1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, and
“2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.
“The right of the defendant in a criminal case ‘to be exempt from being a witness against himself’ signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, for a co-accused or even for himself. In other words — unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to him — the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, and answer any question. x x x” (Underscoring supplied)
Applying this decision to your situation, the privilege against self-incrimination is not absolute on the part of an ordinary witness. The right may not be invoked to disregard a subpoena or decline to appear in court. It is only when a particular question, which calls for an incriminating answer, is asked that the witness can claim such privilege or refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Compared to an accused in a criminal case, he or she can refuse outright to take the witness stand or refuse to testify altogether.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
