Case Summary (G.R. No. 72670)
Key Dates and Applicable Legal Framework
Key events recited in the record include the assassination (August 21, 1983), the Fact-Finding Board hearings (November 3, 1983 to October 24, 1984), the filing of the criminal informations (January 23, 1985), the Sandiganbayan decision of acquittal (December 2, 1985), the petitions and restraining order proceedings before the Supreme Court (November–December 1985), revelations by Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (reported March 1986), the Vasquez Commission hearings (June–July 1986) and the Supreme Court resolution nullifying the Sandiganbayan proceedings (September 12, 1986). Applicable constitutional framework and legal principles are considered under the constitutional and statutory law operative at the time of decision (pre-1987 constitutional framework), together with controlling doctrines on due process, judicial impartiality, and double jeopardy as discussed in the decision.
Issues Presented
Whether the Sandiganbayan proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 (People v. Luther Custodio, et al.) were so tainted by extrinsic pressure, collusion and suppression of evidence—principally by directives and monitoring from Malacañang—that the trial amounted to a “sham” or mock trial; whether the resultant Sandiganbayan acquittal is void ab initio; whether double jeopardy bars retrial; and whether the remedy of nullification and remand for a new, fair trial is appropriate.
Relevant Investigative Findings and Conflicting Reports
The presidentially constituted Fact-Finding Board (Agrava Board) produced both a majority report and a minority report. Both reports rejected the simple military narrative that Rolando Galman was the sole communist-hired assassin and concluded that only soldiers in the staircase could have shot Ninoy and that the soldiers’ story was perjured and conspiratorial. The majority recommended indictment of all twenty-six respondents; the chairman’s (minority) report limited culpability to fewer individuals. The executive branch initially treated the chairman’s minority report as controlling and publicly rejected the majority findings, setting the political backdrop for subsequent actions.
Malacañang Conference and the Allegations of Scripted Handling
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera testified and reported that on January 10, 1985 President Marcos summoned Tanodbayan Fernandez, Presiding Justice Pamaran, and the entire prosecution panel to Malacañang and expressed his view that Galman had shot Aquino, discussed political considerations, and directed that the case be filed in a categorized manner so that some accused would be charged in lesser categories (to facilitate bail and the political objective of an eventual acquittal). Herrera alleged that the President told the group to “mag moro-moro na lang kayo” (stage/manage it as a drama), that the presiding justice was instructed to handle the case personally, and that a scripted and expedited trial was the desired outcome. The Vasquez Commission, established by the Supreme Court to receive evidence on collusion and pressure, found these Malacañang directives were given and amounted to pressure.
Vasquez Commission: Composition, Evidence Received and Core Findings
The Court appointed a three-member commission (retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado M. Vasquez as chairman and retired Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members) to take evidence. After hearings and evaluation of documentary and testimonial evidence, the Commission concluded that: (1) Malacañang learned of the impending filing and summoned the Tanodbayan panel and a Sandiganbayan justice on January 10, 1985; (2) President Marcos initially resisted charging all accused but later directed a politically expedient approach—file charges but “categorize” participation so that acquittal would foreclose subsequent prosecution by double jeopardy; (3) the Malacañang directives were followed in multiple respects; and (4) the prosecution and the Justices acted under compulsion that prevented the fullest presentation of evidence and predetermined the outcome.
Manifestations of Pressure, Suppression and Manipulation Found by the Commission
The Commission catalogued concrete manifestations supporting its conclusions: alteration of the prosecution’s original resolution (from charging all 26 as principals to a categorized charging scheme), suppression and harassment of prosecution witnesses (recantations, disappearances, deportation and intimidation), deliberate discarding of affidavits by U.S. airmen, failure to present nine proposed rebuttal witnesses, refusal to pursue available remedies against adverse developments, suspiciously rushed raffle/assignment to the First Division and close assignment to Presiding Justice Pamaran, confinement of accused in military custody rather than civilian jail, and continuous monitoring of courtroom proceedings by Malacañang (including the presence of TV monitors and a “war room”). The Commission concluded these acts formed part of a “scripted and predetermined” manner of handling and disposing of the case.
Legal Characterization: Interference, Illegality and Effect on Judicial Competence
The Court treated the Malacañang conference and subsequent actions as the exercise of improper executive influence over judicial and prosecutorial functions. The opinion notes that the Penal Code penalizes executive officers who address orders or suggestions to judicial authorities concerning cases within courts’ exclusive jurisdiction. The Commission’s and Court’s findings established that the conference and the attendant pressure vitiated the Sandiganbayan’s competence to act independently, rendering the proceedings constitutionally defective for lack of an impartial tribunal and unbiased prosecutor.
Due Process Analysis and the “Mock Trial” Finding
The Court held that due process requires an impartial tribunal and a prosecutor that represents the sovereign people’s interest in securing justice rather than a predetermined political outcome. The Court found that the prosecution had been prevented from fully ventilating its position, that relevant evidence had been suppressed or stifled, that witnesses had been harassed and intimidated, and that the trial pace and courtroom management reflected orchestration to produce acquittal. Given those facts, the decision characterized the Sandiganbayan proceedings as a sham or mock trial and concluded the rendered acquittal was void ab initio for want of due process and jurisdiction.
Double Jeopardy Doctrine and Its Exception in This Case
The Court applied prevailing doctrine that double jeopardy does not bar a remand or retrial where the initial proceedings and judgment are void for lack of jurisdiction or where the prosecution was denied due process. Citing prior authority and reasoning developed in the decision, the Court concluded that: (1) legal jeopardy attaches only to valid proceedings before competent courts; (2) where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case the State’s due process rights are violated and the judgment is void; and (3) a verdict procured by fraud, collusion or extrinsic pressure is a nullity and does not afford the accused protection against subsequent prosecution. Accordingly, double jeopardy did not bar remand and retrial here.
Procedural Issues: Motion for Inhibition and Prematurity of Sandiganbayan Decision
The Court also addressed the procedural concern that the Sandiganbayan should have resolved motions to disqualify or for inhibition before proceeding to trial and deciding the case. The opinion criticized the presiding justice’s conduct—disposing of the case without first deciding the inhibition issue and pushing an expedited trial—observing that Rivering and other prudential considerations required restraint, especially given the extraordinary public interest and allegations of bias. The Court observed the Sandiganbayan’s premature promulgation of judgment while this Court had required comments on the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Relief, Holding and Immediate Disposition
The Supreme Court (by a majority opinion) adopted and approved the Vasquez Commission’s Report and findings, held that the Malacañang-directed scripting
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 72670)
Case Summary and Core Holding
- The Supreme Court, en banc, after receiving and adopting the Vasquez Commission Report and hearing parties’ objections, held that the trial proceedings in Sandiganbayan Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 ("People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.") were vitiated by pressure, manipulation, collusion and suppression of evidence originating from Malacanang and that the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Tanodbayan acted under compulsion beyond their capacity to resist.
- The Court declared the Sandiganbayan proceedings and its judgment of acquittal null and void ab initio and ordered a retrial of the cases before an impartial tribunal with an unbiased prosecutor, directing that the retrial be conducted with deliberate dispatch and careful regard for due process.
- The Court held that double jeopardy did not bar retrial because the acquittal was void for lack of due process and because the prosecution had been deprived of a fair opportunity to present its case.
Facts: The Assassination and Immediate Aftermath
- Former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. was assassinated at the Manila International Airport (MIA) on August 21, 1983 upon returning from exile; he had been previously imprisoned and sentenced by military tribunals and had been allowed to leave the country in May 1980 for heart surgery.
- Ninoy was shot point-blank in the back of the head while under military escort amid heavy security reportedly numbering close to 2,000 soldiers, and Rolando Galman was identified by the military investigators as the assassin and was immediately gunned down by military escorts.
- The military publicly and quickly promulgated a version attributing the assassination to a communist-hired gunman (Rolando Galman), filmed a re-enactment, and the President publicly accepted and repeatedly defended the military version.
- The assassination produced national outrage, large public mourning, and calls for an independent investigation of the "treacherous and vicious assassination."
Fact-Finding Board (Agrava Board) Proceedings and Reports
- The President constituted a Fact-Finding Board on October 22, 1983, after earlier efforts faltered; the Board held 125 hearing days, including hearings in Tokyo and Los Angeles, and recorded testimony of 194 witnesses in 20,377 pages of transcripts.
- The Agrava Board issued two reports: a minority report by the chairman (submitted one day earlier) and a four-member majority report (submitted the following day). Both reports rejected the military's version that Rolando Galman was the assassin and concluded that only the soldiers on the staircase could have shot Aquino and that Galman was not the assassin.
- The majority report concluded that Ninoy’s assassination resulted from a military conspiracy and found all twenty-six private respondents (headed by Gen. Fabian C. Ver) involved and indictable for premeditated killing; the chairman’s minority report limited the alleged plotters to those on the service stairs and General Luther Custodio.
- The President received the chairman's minority report cordially and referred it to the Tanodbayan for final resolution, while he coldly received and rebuked the majority report.
Procedural Posture: Filings, Sandiganbayan Trial, and Petitioners’ Challenge
- Petitioners (including relatives of Rolando Galman and prominent citizens) filed a petition alleging serious irregularities, mistrial, miscarriage of justice, suppression of vital evidence by the Tanodbayan, and bias/partiality by the Sandiganbayan justices; they sought injunctive relief restraining Sandiganbayan from rendering decision and prayed for a declaration of mistrial and retrial before an impartial tribunal.
- The Supreme Court initially issued a temporary restraining order on November 18, 1985 by a nine-to-two vote, allowed time for pleadings, then on November 28, 1985 reversed course by the same 9–2 split and dismissed petitioners’ application and lifted the TRO; petitioners moved for reconsideration.
- Sandiganbayan rendered its decision of acquittal on December 2, 1985, acquitting all accused and pronouncing them innocent of criminal and civil liability; the decision effectively treated Rolando Galman as the assassin despite his not having been on trial and despite the Agrava Board’s contrary findings.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 4, 1986 by the same Court majority that had earlier dismissed the petition; petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration (March 20, 1986) based on revelations by Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera reported March 6, 1986.
Revelations by Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (March 1986)
- Herrera alleged that President Marcos ordered the Tanodbayan, Sandiganbayan, and prosecution panel to "whitewash" the cases and to produce a verdict of acquittal.
- Herrera narrated a January 10, 1985 Malacanang conference where President Marcos, Justice Fernandez (Tanodbayan), Justice Pamaran (Sandiganbayan), and the Special Investigating Panel were summoned; the President allegedly insisted on the Galman theory, then agreed that charging the accused in court and obtaining a planned acquittal would serve political and legal ends (including reliance on double jeopardy).
- Herrera recounted that the President directed categorizing the accused to limit preventive custody concerns, suggested Justice Pamaran personally handle the case and expedite trial to finish in four to six months, and made comments implying quid pro quo ("Magmoro-moro na lang kayo"; "I know how to reciprocate").
- Herrera detailed "implementation of the script": a rushed raffle of assignment within 18 minutes of filing the informations, installation of TV monitors beamed to Malacanang, a "war room" monitoring trial, attempts to stifle and harass prosecution witnesses, suppression of U.S. airmen affidavits and other rebuttal witnesses, and a fast-paced trial environment unfavorable to the prosecution.
Appointment and Mandate of the Vasquez Commission
- On June 5, 1986 the Supreme Court appointed a three-member commission (retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, and retired IAC Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa) to hear and receive evidence on charges of collusion, pressure, suppression, and related matters; the commission conducted 19 days of hearings (June 16 to July 16, 1986) and issued a 64-page Report on July 31, 1986.
- The Commission was tasked to evaluate the factual allegations of pressure, manipulation and suppression of evidence, and to make findings and recommendations for the Court.
Vasquez Commission Findings — Recapitulation (Capsulized)
- The Office of the Tanodbayan (Justice Fernandez and Special Investigating Panel) initially intended to charge all twenty-six respondents as principals in a draft resolution.
- President Marcos summoned key officials to Malacanang on January 10, 1985; he first disputed the Agrava Board findings but later favored filing charges so the accused could be acquitted in court and shielded by double jeopardy.
- The President directed categorization of the accused (principals, accessories, accomplices) and ordered that the case be personally handled by Justice Pamaran and be disposed of promptly.
- The instructions from Malacanang were followed in many specific manifestations: changing the draft resolution, filing the case and assigning it to Justice Pamaran, suppression of vital evidence, harassment and intimidation of witnesses, coaching of defense counsel, a hasty trial, monitoring of proceedings from Malacanang, and even in the content of the decision.
- The Commission concluded that the President’s expressed desires constituted sufficient pressure that pervaded and predetermined the final outcome (acquittal) and that some participants complied while others (notably Justice Herrera) were ambivalent.
Vasquez Commission — Specific Manifestations of Pressure and Manipulation
- Changing the original draft resolution that would have charged all twenty-six respondents as principals into a categorized charging scheme, consistent with Malacanang instruction and contrary to normal prosecutorial practice of charging the gravest offense where in doubt.
- Suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses, including:
- Recantations and discarding of witnesses who had testified before the Fact-Finding Board (e.g., Cesar Loterina, Roberta Masibay).
- Disappearance or inability to locate witnesses who had previously cooperated (Viesca, Ranas).
- Efforts to stifle and deport Kiyoshi Wakamiya (Japanese eyewitness), to prevent his testimony in Manila, and concerns over the accur