Roger Chavez

Vs
Court of Appeal

Facts: 
Judgment of conviction was for qualified theft of a motor vehicle(thunderbird car
together with accessories). An information was filed against the accused together with other
accused, that they conspired, with intent to gain and abuse of confidence without the consent of
owner Dy Lim, took the vehicle. All the accused plead not guilty. During the trial, the fiscal
grecia (prosecution) asked roger Chavez to be the first witness. Counsel of the accused opposed.
Fiscal Grecia contends that the accused (Chavez) will only be an ordinary witness not an state
witness. Counsel of accused answer that it will only incriminate his client. But the jugde ruled in
favor of the fiscal.
Petitioner was convicted.

ISSUE:
Whether or not constitutional right of Chavez against self – incrimination had been
violated – to warrant writ of HC?

HELD:
YES. Petitioner was forced to testify to incriminate himself, in full breach of his
constitutional right to remain silent. It cannot be said now that he has waived his right. He did
not volunteer to take the stand and in his own defense; he did not offer himself as a witness;

It is in the context that we sat that the constitutional guarantee may not be treated with
unconcern. To repeat, it is mandatory: it secures to every defendant a valuable and substantive
right. The court may not extract from a defendant’s own lips and against his will an admission of
his guilt. In reality, the purpose calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to
incriminate him.
Juxtaposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore adverted to, make waiver a
shaky defense. It cannot stand. If, by his own admission, defendant proved his guilt, still, his
original claim remains valid. For the privilege, we say again, is a rampart that gives protection –
even to the guilty

Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an

exceptional remedy to release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the
accused’s constitutional rights are disregarded.  Such defect results in the absence or loss of
jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction of the accused
whose fundamental right was violated.  That void judgment of conviction may be challenged
by collateral attack, which precisely is the function of habeas corpus. This writ may issue
even if another remedy which is less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure
by the accused to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals does not preclude a recourse to
the writ. The writ may be granted upon a judgment already final.