GR L 17113; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17113; May 23, 1961
JUANITO SUAREZ, petitioner, vs. HON. DAMASO S. TENGCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, DOMINGO DE LA ROCA, BENEDICTA UMALI and DANILO DE LA ROCA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Juanito Suarez seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain respondent Judge from compelling him to testify as a witness for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1058. The civil case, filed by respondents De la Roca and Umali, seeks damages arising from a vehicular collision involving a jeep they were riding in and an automobile driven by Suarez. A related criminal case (Criminal Case No. 1458) for reckless negligence arising from the same incident is pending against Suarez in the same court.
During the civil trial, the plaintiffs called Suarez, the defendant, as their first witness. Suarez objected, arguing that being forced to testify would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination, as his testimony could be used as evidence in the pending criminal case. The respondent Judge overruled the objection and ordered Suarez to take the witness stand, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in compelling the petitioner, who is an accused in a pending criminal case arising from the same facts, to take the witness stand and testify for the adverse party in the independent civil action for damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the respondent Judge did not err. The Court clarified that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, while applicable in all proceedings, operates differently in civil cases compared to criminal cases. In a criminal case, an accused cannot be compelled to testify even for his own defense. However, in a civil action, the privilege is not a blanket prohibition against being called to the witness stand; it is merely an option to refuse to answer specific incriminating questions.
The Rules of Court expressly authorize a party to call an adverse party as a witness (Section 83, Rule 123). The civil action for damages, though arising from the same act, is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal prosecution. The proper procedure is for the witness to invoke the privilege at the precise moment a question calling for a self-incriminating answer is asked, not beforehand by refusing to take the stand entirely. Since Suarez invoked the privilege prematurely by declining to be sworn at all, the trial court correctly ordered him to take the stand. His right remains protected, as he may still validly refuse to answer specific incriminating queries during his testimony.