Case Digest (G.R. No. 72670)
Facts:
Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986, the Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners included Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman (mother and son of Rolando Galman) and twenty-nine other prominent citizens; respondents included the Sandiganbayan, First Division (presided by Justice Manuel Pamaran), Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez, and twenty-six accused military officers and one civilian (including Gen. Fabian C. Ver and Gen. Luther A. Custodio) who were intervenors. Petitioners sought to nullify the Sandiganbayan proceedings that had led to the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 (the assassination of Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman).
After Ninoy Aquino’s assassination on August 21, 1983, President Marcos created a Fact Finding Board (the Agrava Board) whose majority and minority reports disagreed on the extent of military involvement but both rejected the simple military "Galman as communist assassin" version. The President publicly endorsed the military version, and tensions followed. In January 1985 a Tanodbayan investigating panel prepared a resolution to charge all twenty-six respondents as principals; petitioners allege that President Marcos then summoned Tanodbayan Fernandez, the presiding Sandiganbayan Justice Pamaran and the prosecution panel to Malacañang (January 10, 1985) and “scripted” the handling of the prosecution so that the accused would later be acquitted, thus shielding them by double jeopardy.
On November 11, 1985 petitioners filed the present action alleging collusion, suppression of vital evidence, bias of the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan, and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Sandiganbayan from promulgating decision. On November 18, 1985 the Supreme Court issued a TRO by 9–2 vote but on November 28, 1985 the same Court majority dismissed the petition and lifted the TRO; petitioners moved for reconsideration. Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan rendered its judgment of acquittal on December 2, 1985.
The Court denied petitioners’ first motion for reconsideration on February 4, 1986. Petitioners then filed a second motion for reconsideration (March 20, 1986) based on published revelations by Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera that alleged Malacañang-ordered whitewashing and a staged trial; the Court admitted the second motion on April 3, 1986. On June 5, 1986 the Court appointed a three‑member fact-finding commission (retired Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, and former Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa) to receive evidence on the collusion and pressure claims. The Commission held hearings (June 16–July 16, 1986) and submitted a July 31, 1986 report finding credible, extensive evidence that the January 10, 1985 Malacañang conference and subsequent pressures pervaded the Tanodbayan’s and Sandiganbayan’s handling of the case, resulting in a scripted and predetermined acquittal; it recommended that the proceedings be declared void and retried.
The Court received parties’ objections, heard further argument (A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court set aside the Sandiganbayan’s judgment of acquittal and order a retrial despite the general bar against double jeopardy?
- Were the Tanodbayan’s and Sandiganbayan’s proceedings in the Aquino–Galman cases vitiated by executive pressure, collusion and suppression of evidence so as to render the trial a mock trial and its judgment void ab initio?
- Should the motion to disqualify/inhibit the Sandiganbayan justices have been resolved prior to the Sandiganbayan’s decision, and does the Court have power to enjoin or...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)