Case Summary (G.R. No. 72670)
Petitioners
Saturnina and Reynaldo Galman, on behalf of the heirs of Rolando Galman and as representatives of the people’s right to due process and an impartial tribunal.
Respondents
Sandiganbayan justices who tried and acquitted the accused; Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and its prosecution panel; and the private-party accused military officers and one civilian.
Key Dates
• August 21, 1983: Aquino assassination.
• October 22, 1983: Presidential Decree constituting Fact-Finding Board.
• January 10, 1985: Secret Malacañang conference.
• November 11–28, 1985: Filing of petition, issuance and lifting of temporary restraining order, and dismissal.
• March 20, 1986: Second motion for reconsideration based on new evidence.
• June–July 1986: Vasquez Commission hearings.
• September 12, 1986: En banc resolution ordering retrial.
Applicable Law
• 1973 Philippine Constitution: Due process (Art. 1, Bill of Rights), double jeopardy (Art. 22, Bill of Rights).
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 243: Prohibits executive interference in judicial cases.
• Presidential Decrees Nos. 1886/1903: Created Fact-Finding Board.
• PD 1950: Custody of military personnel charged in civilian court.
• Precedents: People v. Bocar (1985), Valdez v. Aquilizan (1984), Paredes v. Gopengco (1969).
Factual Background
Ninoy Aquino, released to seek medical treatment abroad in 1980, returned to the Philippines on August 21, 1983 and was fatally shot upon arrival. The military immediately blamed a purported communist assassin, Rolando Galman, who was then killed by soldiers. State-appointed Agrava Board hearings (Nov 1983–Oct 1984) produced competing majority and minority reports, both rejecting the military’s “communist‐hired” theory and finding a military conspiracy.
Agrava Board Findings
• Majority Report (4 members): All twenty-six respondents, including Generals Ver and Olivas, were implicated as principals in a premeditated conspiracy to kill Aquino and Galman.
• Minority Report (Chairman Justice Agrava): Limited conspiracy to those on the service stairs and key figures such as Col. Custodio, excluding nineteen others.
Presidential Intervention: Malacañang Conference
On January 10, 1985, President Marcos personally summoned Tanodbayan Justice Fernandez, Deputy Ombudsman Herrera, Presiding Justice Pamaran, and panel members to Malacañang. He rejected the Agrava findings, then agreed to file charges in court only to secure acquittal under double jeopardy doctrine. He ordered categorization of accused (principals vs. accessories), instructed Pamaran to handle the trial, and signaled that all twenty-six must be acquitted (“moro-moro na lang kayo”).
Conduct of Trial and Irregularities
The Vasquez Commission found pervasive scripting and manipulation:
• Revision of prosecution panel’s draft resolution to reflect categorization.
• Suppression and harassment of key witnesses (e.g., Japanese eyewitness Wakamiya, Rebecca Quijano).
• Discarding of affidavits by U.S. airmen.
• Failure to present nine rebuttal witnesses.
• Rushed raffle assigning the case to Pamaran within eighteen minutes of filing.
• Unauthorized military custody under PD 1950.
• “War room” monitoring by Malacañang personnel; televised court proceedings labeled “Office of the President.”
• Biased judicial conduct culminating in a decision that declared all accused “innocent” and absolved of criminal or civil liability.
Vasquez Commission Investigation
By resolution of June 5, 1986, the Court appointed a three-member commission (Retired SC Justice Vasquez; CA Justices German, Caguioa) to receive and evaluate evidence. After nineteen hearing days, the commission reported a “scripted and predetermined manner” of trial and recommended declaring a mistrial due to lack of due process and predetermined outcome.
Supreme Court Analysis
The en banc Court adopted the Vasquez Commission’s findings. It held that presidential orders to judicial officers and prosecutors violated Art. 243, RPC, and the constitutional gua
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 72670)
Facts and Historical Context
- August 21, 1983 marked the third anniversary of Ninoy Aquino’s assassination, a national tragedy.
- Aquino had been imprisoned eight years under martial law, tried by military tribunal for pre-martial-law offenses despite civil-court rights.
- The 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing and suspension of habeas corpus established a climate of political violence.
- Marcos publicly indicted and convicted Aquino in a press conference before any civil trial.
Ninoy Aquino’s Arrest and Military Trial
- Arrested in September 1972 after martial law declaration by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
- Tried by Military Commission No. 2, sentenced to death by firing squad, despite civilian status.
- Aquino challenged tribunal jurisdiction; Supreme Court denied his petition in May 1975.
- Allowed to travel to the U.S. in 1980 for heart surgery; lived in exile for three years.
The Assassination of Ninoy Aquino and Initial Investigations
- Returned August 21, 1983; shot point-blank in the head on disembarking at Manila International Airport.
- Security cordon of 2,000 soldiers in place; assassination viewed as technically impossible without insider aid.
- Military investigators produced a three-hour report blaming Rolando Galman, alleged NPA gunman; escorts then killed Galman.
- Military-scripted reenactment broadcast on TV; Marcos repeated the military version on national television.
- Public outrage and ten-day national mourning reflected collective grief and demand for truth.
The Fact-Finding (Agrava) Board and Its Reports
- Marcos created Fact-Finding Board by P.D. 1886 (Oct. 14, 1983) and P.D. 1903 (Feb. 8, 1984).
- Board chaired by Justice Corazon Agrava; members: Salazar, Santos, Herrera, Dizon.
- Held 125 hearing days (Nov. 1983–Oct. 1984), including sessions in Tokyo and Los Angeles; 194 witnesses, 20,377 transcript pages.
- Minority report (chair Agrava) limited conspirators to seven persons; majority report indicted all 26 respondents.
- Both reports rejected military version, found no subversive ties for Galman, concluded soldiers on the stairs fired the fatal shot.
President Marcos’s Responses to the Board’s Findings
- Marcos congenially received minority report as controlling, referred it to Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan.
- Coldly rejected majority report, calling it a betrayal of conscience.
- Publicly insisted Galman was Aquino’s assassin, accused communists, and denied any government involvement.
- Extended support to implicated generals; promised reinstatement if acquitted by Sandiganbayan.
- Continued to reject Board’s findings throughout TV and radio interviews during 1983–1985.