2.

CABAL VS KAPUNAN Facts The former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Manuel Cabal, was the defendant of the complaint filed by Col. Jose Maristela of the Philippine Army, charging Chief of Staff Cabal with graft, corrupt practices and unexplained wealth which was committed in 1958. Adjudged as guilty of contempt for reason of refusal to take the witness stand and be a witness for complainant Maristela in support of the charge against him. Cabal filed motion to quash invoking his constitutional right against selfincrimination. As the charge was assigned to another branch presided over by herein respondent Judge Kapunan, the motion to quash was denied for reason that such constitutional right cannot be invoked in an administrative case, the penalty being imposed is forfeiture to the State of property of Cabal as a public officer and his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. Hence, this petition. Issue Whether or not the constitutional right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in an administrative case where forfeiture is the penalty Ruling The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabal. It worded, the rule protecting a person from being compelled to furnish evidence which would incriminate him exists not only when he is liable criminally to prosecution and punishment, but also when his answer would tend to expose him to a forfeiture which is imposed as a vindication of the public justice of the State. I the case at bar, since forfeiture of property of Cabal is the penalty imposes, though an administrative proceeding, the constitutional right against self-incrimination can be invoked.