G.R. No. 96027-28 - Custodio vs. Sandiganbayan

BRIG. GEN. LUTHER A. CUSTODIO, CAPT. ROMEO M. BAUTISTA, 2ND LT. JESUS D. CASTRO, SGT. CLARO L. LAT, SGT. ARNULFO B. DE MESA, C1C ROGELIO B. MORENO, C1C MARIO E. LAZAGA, SGT. FILOMENO D. MIRANDA, SGT. ROLANDO C. DE GUZMAN, SGT. ERNESTO M. MATEO, SGT. RODOLFO M. DESOLONG, A1C CORDOVA G. ESTELO, MSGT. PABLO S. MARTINEZ, SGT. RUBEN AQUINO, SGT. ARNULFO ARTATES, A1C FELIZARDO TARAN were the petitioners convicted by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 for the double murder of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman on August 21, 1983.
SANDIGANBAYAN was the trial court that conducted the second trial that convicted the petitioners; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the prosecution respondent in the criminal cases.

Petitioners were military members who acted as Senator Aquino’s security detail upon his arrival in Manila after three years abroad.
Senator Aquino was fatally shot while descending from the China Airlines aircraft at the Manila International Airport; Rolando Galman was also gunned down on the airport tarmac.
On December 2, 1985, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010-10011 acquitting all accused, including the petitioners.
This Court later found the 1985 Sandiganbayan proceedings to be a sham, nullified those proceedings and the judgment of acquittal, and ordered a re-trial (see Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)).

At the re-trial, the Sandiganbayan in a decision dated September 28, 1990, acquitted some accused but found the petitioners guilty as principals of murder in both Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua in each case.
The petitioners’ petition for review to this Court and their motion for reconsideration were denied, and entry of judgment was made on September 30, 1991, rendering the convictions final and executory.

In August 2004 petitioners sought legal assistance from the Chief Public Attorney, which led to a request for a forensic review by the University of the Philippines Independent Forensic Group.
Petitioners filed a Motion To Re-Open Case With Leave Of Court asking this Court to allow re-opening and a third trial; they invoked three principal grounds:

Existence of newly discovered evidence consisting of (A) independent forensic evidence allegedly uncovering false forensic claims that led to conviction, and (B) a key defense eyewitness to the actual killing of Senator Aquino.
Grave violations of due process, alleged as (A) insufficient legal assistance of counsel, (B) deprivation of right to counsel of choice, (C) testimonies of defense witnesses given under duress, (D) willful suppression of evidence, and (E) use of false forensic evidence leading to unjust conviction.
Serious misapprehension of facts by the Sandiganbayan based on false forensic evidence entitling petitioners to re-trial.

The forensic group comprised Prof. Jerome B. Bailen (forensic anthropologist), Atty. Erwin P. Erfe, M.D. (medico-legal practitioner), Benito E. Molino, M.D. (forensic consultant), and Anastacio N. Rosete, Jr., D.M.D. (forensic dentistry consultant).
The forensic group’s report concluded that C1C Rogelio Moreno could not have fired at Senator Aquino as they descended the stairway and posited that Senator Aquino was shot while walking on the tarmac toward the AVSECOM van, contrary to the Sandiganbayan’s finding that Moreno shot Aquino on the stairway.
The forensic report asserted that physical evidence may have been misinterpreted or manipulated to mislead the court and that its review constituted newly discovered evidence under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioners also sought to present an affidavit of SPO4 Ruben M. Cantimbuhan, the driver of the AVSECOM van, who stated he saw a man in blue uniform fire at Aquino as the senator was about to board the van; the man was later identified as Rolando Galman.
Petitioners prayed that the Court annul and set aside its Resolutions dated July 23, 1991 and September 10, 1991, annul and set aside the Sandiganbayan decision dated September 28, 1990, order re-opening of the cases and order the Sandiganbayan to receive additional defense evidence and hold a re-trial.

The forensic group listed as materials the court records, photographs of the stairway and tarmac, autopsy and NBI medico-legal reports (Autopsy Report No. N-83-22-36), the gun and live ammunition recovered, reference skull photos and X-rays, reports of interviews and statements by convicted escorts and witnesses, re-enactments, books and articles on forensic science, and results of forensic experiments.
Methods employed included review of forensic exhibits and TSNs, study of guns and slugs, interviews and re-enactments based on mi...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether petitioners were entitled to the relief of a new trial (a third trial) under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure on the ground of newly discovered evidence and/or errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to their substantial rights.

Whether the forensic group’s report qualified as newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the second trial.
Whether the alleged eyewitness statement of SPO4 Ruben M. Cantimbuhan constituted newly discovered evidence that would probably change the judgment.
Whether petitioners were denied due process by inadequate legal assistance of counsel, deprivation o...(Subscriber-Only)