Chavez vs.

CA

During the trial, the counsel of Chavez told the judge his client will not present himself as a witness.
Here he was charged qualified theft with all other accused. Judge told that he will present his client as
an ordinary witness "is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness
stand including the accused," and that defense counsel "could not object to have the accused called on
the witness stand." After testifying, the trial court found him guilty to which his testimony as witness for
the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was branded as a "self-confessed
culprit". Hence. this instant petition. (Appealed on CA-dismissed)

WON petitioner was compelled to testify against himself

YES. The Constitutional provision that "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,"9
fully echoed in Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court where, in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant
shall be entitled: "(e) To be exempt from being a witness against himself." In this case, Chavez, guilt was
established from his own testimony as a witness. Where he made is clear from the beginning that he will
not testify and was just convonced by the judge's emphatic words. Thus peremptorily asked to create
evidence against himself.

The court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor
may a court as much as resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts usable against him
as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to prove the commission of a crime. Because, it
is his right to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with
undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will.

Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the
product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from
making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be
sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant."