Case Summary (G.R. No. 71208-09)
Board Hearings and Witness Testimonies
Under subpoena or “invitation,” the Board summoned both ordinary witnesses and the eight private respondents—military officers and personnel suspected of complicity. Section 5, P.D. 1886 compelled testimony or evidence production “under pain of contempt,” while Section 10 guaranteed the right to counsel.
Criminal Charges in the Sandiganbayan
Following Agrava Board reports, the Tanodbayan filed two murder informations in the Sandiganbayan: one for Aquino’s killing, another for the death of Rolando Galman. Private respondents were arraigned as accessories and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution offered their Board testimonies as evidence.
Motions to Exclude and Sandiganbayan’s Ruling
Respondents moved to exclude their own Board testimonies, invoking the privilege against self‐incrimination and immunity under P.D. 1886 Sec. 5. The Tanodbayan argued immunity required prior invocation of privilege before the Board. The Sandiganbayan resolved that all compelled testimonies and evidence from the Board were inadmissible against them.
Issue before the Supreme Court
Whether testimonies and evidence of private respondents obtained under compulsion by the Agrava Board may be used against them in subsequent criminal prosecutions, or whether the constitutional privilege against self‐incrimination and statutory immunity bar their use.
Constitutional Right Against Self-Incrimination and Due Process
Under the 1973 Constitution (Art. IV, §§ 1, 17, 20), no person may be compelled to testify against himself, must be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel, and any confession in violation is inadmissible. These fundamental guarantees apply to all persons “under investigation,” not only to those in police custody.
Statutory Immunity under P.D. 1886
Section 5 of P.D. 1886 compels witnesses before the Agrava Board to testify despite self-incrimination fears but provides that such compelled testimony “shall not be used against him” in any transaction for which he was compelled, except perjury. This is a “use immunity” statute.
Interpretation of Section 5, P.D. 1886
Although the decree conditions immunity on invocation of the privilege, requiring a claim of privilege before testimony is futile under its First Clause, which bars refusal even if privilege is asserted, under penalty of contempt. Compulsion without co-extensive immunit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 71208-09)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE TANODBAYAN vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.
Facts
- On August 21, 1983, former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was assassinated on the tarmac of Manila International Airport; Rolando Galman was also found dead nearby.
- Presidential Decree No. 1886 (P.D. 1886) created an independent Fact-Finding Board (Agrava Board) with plenary powers to investigate the killings.
- The Board conducted public hearings; ordinary witnesses and eight private respondents (Gens. Ver, Olivas; Sgts. Martinez, Fernandez, Mojica, Torio, Bona; AIC Acupido) appeared and testified under subpoena or invitation.
- Two reports were submitted to the President: a minority report by Justice Agrava and a majority report by Board members Salazar, Dizon, Santos, and Herrera.
Procedural History
- The Agrava reports were referred to the Tanodbayan, which filed two murder informations in the Sandiganbayan: Crim. Case No. 10010 (Aquino) and No. 10011 (Galman).
- All accused, including the eight private respondents, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- At trial, the prosecution offered respondents’ Agrava Board testimonies and other evidence produced by them (Exhs. VVV to CCCC-1).
- Respondents moved to exclude these exhibits on grounds of self-incrimination and immunity under P.D. 1886.
- The Sandiganbayan, by Resolution dated June 13, 1985, excluded all such evidence “in view of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886.”
- Petitioners filed certiorari petitions (G.R. Nos. 71208-09; 71212-13) before the Supreme Court, alleging lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
Issue
- Whether the compelled testimonies and evidence given by the eight private respondents before the Agrava Board—without invoking their privilege against self-incrimination at that time—are admissible against them in subsequent criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
Legal Provisions
- 1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 20:
• No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• Any person under inv