Arnault v. Nazareno
G.R. No. L-3820
July 18, 1950
Ozaeta, J.
Facts:
In
the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural Progress
Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong for the sums
of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively. P1,000,000 was paid for the first sum
and P 500,000 to the second sum both to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American,
thru his two attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, as represented by Jean L. Arnault,
for both estates respectively. However, Ernest H. Burt was not the original owner
of the estate. He bought the first from San Juan de Dios hospital and the second
from the Philippine trust company. In both instances, Burt was not able to pay the
necessary amount of money to complete his payments. As such, his contract with said
owners were cancelled.
On September 4,
1947, the Philippine Trust Company sold, conveyed, and delivered the Tambobong Estate
to the Rural Progress Administration by an abolute deed of sale in consideration
of the sum of P750,000. The Philippine Government then, through the Secretary of
Justice as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rural Progress Administration
and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Bank, from
which the money was borrowed, accomplished the purchase of the two estates in the
latter part of October, 1949, as stated at the outset.
On February 27,
1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, which created a special committee
to investigate the transactions surrounding the estates. The special committee created
by the resolution called and examined various witnesses, among the most important
of whom was Jean L. Arnault. An intriguing question which the committee sought to
resolve was the apparent unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government’s paying
to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in
the two estates, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949.
The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from
the transaction at the expense of the Government.
Arnault testified
that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered to him on
the afternoon of October 29, 1949; that on the same date he opened a new account
in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National Bank in which he deposited
the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the same occasion he drew on
said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of
the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine National Bank, and another for
P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.
It was the desire
of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of P440,000 that
gave rise to the present case. As Arnault resisted to name the recipient of the
money, the senate then approved a resolution that cited him for contempt. It is
this resolution which brought him to jail and is being contested in this petition.
Issue:
whether
the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to reveal the
name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000
Held:
Yes.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative
body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to
answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional
right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of
the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a
power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member;
and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer
must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The
materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject
of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation.
The reason is that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and
the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the
information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction
of such information elicited from a single question.
Issue:
whether
the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period
of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950
Held:
No.
Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical
dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit
as to time to the Senate’s power to punish for contempt in cases where that power
may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case. Senate will not be disposed
to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, i.e. abuse their power and keep the
witness in prison for life. If proper limitations are disregarded, Court isalways
open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.
Issue:
whether
the privilege against self incrimination protects the petitioner from being questioned
Held:
No.
Court is satisfied that those answers of the witness to the important question,
which is the name of that person to whom witness gave the P440,000, were obviously
false. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should reveal
the name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he knew the name.
Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave P440,000 to a person to him unknown. Testimony
which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is
punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable.
Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal, and that he gave
the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter’s verbal
instruction, Court found no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal
the name of that person might incriminate him.
No comments:
Post a Comment