Galman v Sandiganbayan

8/18/2019 Galman v Sandiganbayan

1/33

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 72670 September 12, 1986

SATURNINA GALMAN, RE NAL!O GALMAN "#$ %OSE P. &ENG'ON, MAR CONCEPCION&AUTISTA, %OA(UIN G. &ERNAS) S.%., M. &ELLARMINE &ERNAS, O.S.&., *RANCISCO I.C+A E', SOLITA COLLAS-MONSO!, SANTIAGO !UMLAO, %R., MARIA *ERIA, MARCELO &.*ERNAN, *RANCISCO GARC+ITORENA, AN!RE/ GON'ALE', %OSE C. LAURETA,SAL A!OR P. LOPE', *ELI . MARAM&A, %R., CECILIA MU O' PALMA. %AIME . ONGPIN,*ELI PERE', %OSE &.L. RE ES, %OSE E. ROMERO, %R., RAMON !EL ROSARIO, %R.,RICAR!O %. ROMULO, AUGUSTO SANC+E', EMMANUEL . SORIANO, !A I! S CIP,ENRI(UE S (UIA, CRISTINA TAN, %ESUS ARGAS, &ERNAR!O M. ILLEGAS, ICENTE

%A ME, ,petitioners,vs.SAN!IGAN&A AN, *IRST !I ISION 3repre4e#te$ b5 % 4t e M"# e P"m"r"#, C:" rm"#, "#$% 4t e4 A ; 4to Amore4 "#$ & e# "#$ GEN. *A&IAN C. ER, MA%. GEN. PROSPERO A. OLI AS,&RIG. GEN. LU*+ER A. CUSTO!IO, COL. ARTURO G. CUSTO!IO, COL. ICENTE &. TIGAS,%R., CAPT. *ELIPE ALERIO, CAPT. LLE/EL N A INTA, CAPT. ROMEO M. &AUTISTA, 2#$LT. %ESUS CASTRO, SGT. PA&LO MARTINE', SGT. ARNUL*O !E MESA, SGT. TOMAS*ERNAN!E', SGT. CLARO LAT, SGT. *ILOMENO MIRAN!A, SGT. ROLAN!O C. !E GU'MAN,SGT. ERNESTO M. MATEO, SGT. RO!OL*O M. !ESOLONG, SGT. LEONAR!O MO%ICA, SGT.PEPITO TORIO, SGT. ARMAN!O !ELA CRU', SGT. PROSPERO A. &ONA, CIC ROGELIO

MORENO, CIC MARIO LA'AGA, AIC COR!O A G. ESTELO, AIC ANICETO ACUPI!O "#$+ERMILO GOSUICO, ,respondents.

Lupino Lazaro and Arturo M. de Castro for petitioners.

Antonio R. Coronel for respondents Gen. Ver and Col. Tigas, Jr.

Rodolfo U. Jimenez for respondent Brig. Gen. Custodio.

Ramon M. Bernaldo for respondent H. Gosui o.

Romulo !uim"o for respondent B. Vera Cruz.

#or"erto J. !uisum"ing for respondent $. %li&as.

'eli( )olomon for respondent Col. A. Custodio.

Alfonso ). Cruz for B. 'ernandez.


2/33

*dgardo B. Ga+os for M. $amaran.

R E S O L ! " O N

TEE+AN EE, C.J.:

Last Au#ust $%st, our nation &ar'ed (ith sole&nit) and for the first ti&e in freedo& the thirdanniversar) of the treacherous assassination of fore&ost opposition leader for&er Senator Beni#no*Nino)* A+uino, r. i&prisoned for al&ost ei#ht )ears since the i&position of &artial la( inSepte&ber, %- $ b) then President /erdinand E. Marcos, he (as sentenced to death b) firin# s+uadb) a &ilitar) tribunal for co&&on offenses alle#ed to have been co&&itted lon# before thedeclaration of &artial la( and (hose 0urisdiction over hi& as a civilian entitled to trial b) 0udicialprocess b) civil courts he repudiated. Nino) pleaded in vain that the &ilitar) tribunals are ad&ittedl)not courts but &ere instru&ents and sub0ect to the control of the President as created b) hi& under

the 1eneral Orders issued b) hi& as Co&&ander2in2Chief of the Ar&ed /orces of the Philippines,and that he had alread) been publicl) indicted and ad0ud#ed #uilt) b) the President of the char#es ina nation(ide press conference held on Au#ust $3, %- % (hen he declared the evidence a#ainstNino) *not onl) stron# but over(hel&in# .* 1 !his follo(ed the Pla4a Miranda bo&bin# of Au#ust $%, %- % of theprocla&ation rall) of the opposition Liberal Part) candidates for the Nove&ber, %- % elections 5(hen ei#ht persons (ere 'illed andpracticall) all of the opposition candidates headed b) Senator ovito Salon#a and &an) &ore (ere seriousl) in0ured6, and the suspension ofthe privile#e of the (rit of habeas corpus under Procla&ation No. 77- on Au#ust $8, %- %. !he &assacre (as instantl) attributed to theco&&unists but the truth has never been 'no(n. But the then President never filed the said char#es a#ainst Nino) in the civil courts.

Nino) A+uino (as nevertheless thereafter allo(ed in Ma), %-79 to leave the countr) to under#osuccessful heart sur#er). After three )ears of e:ile and despite the re#i&e;s refusal to #ive hi& apassport, he sou#ht to return ho&e *to strive for a #enuine national reconciliation founded on 0ustice.*


3/33

After t(o false starts, he finall) constituted the Board 6 on October $$, %-78 (hich held %$@ hearin# da)s co&&encin# Nove&ber 8, %-785includin# 8 hearin#s in !o')o and 7 hearin#s in Los An#eles, California6 and heard the testi&onies of %-3 (itnesses recorded in $9,8pa#es of transcripts, until the sub&ission of their &inorit) and &a0orit) reports to the President on October $8 and $3, %-73. !his (as to&ar' another first an)(here in the (orld (herein the &inorit) report (as sub&itted one da) ahead b) the ponente thereof, the chair&an, (ho(as received con#eniall) and cordiall) b) the then President (ho treated the report as if it (ere the &a0orit) report instead of a &inorit)report of one and forth(ith referred it to respondent !anodba)an *for final resolution throu#h the le#al s)ste&* and for trial in theSandi#anba)an (hich (as better 'no(n as a #raft court and the &a0orit) report of the four other &e&bers (as sub&itted on the follo(in#da) to the then President (ho coldl) received the& and could scarcel) conceal his instant re0ection of their report (ith the #ri& state&entthat *" hope )ou can live (ith )our conscience (ith (hat )ou have done.*

!he fact is that both &a0orit) and &inorit) reports (ere one in re0ectin# the &ilitar) version aspropounded b) the chief investi#ator, respondent 1en. Olivas, that Rolando 1al&an (as the NPA2hired assassin, statin# that *the evidence sho(s >to the contrar)? that Rolando 1al&an had nosubversive affiliations.* !he) (ere in a#ree&ent that *onl) the soldiers in the staircase (ith Sen. A+uino could have shot hi& * that 1al&an, the &ilitar);s *fall #u)* (as *not the assassin of Sen. A+uino and that *the S A! troopers (ho #unned do(n 1al&an and the soldiers (ho escorted Sen. A+uino do(n the service stairs, deliberatel) and in conspirac) (ith one another, #ave a per0uredstor) to us re#ardin# the alle#ed shootin# b) 1al&an of Sen. A+uino and the &o(in# do(n, in turn,of 1al&an hi&self * in short, that Nino);s assassination (as the product of a &ilitar) conspirac), nota co&&unist plot !he onl) difference bet(een the t(o reports is that the &a0orit) report found all thet(ent)2si: private respondents abovena&ed in the title of the case headed b) then A/P Chief1eneral /abian C. =er involved in the &ilitar) conspirac) and therefore *indictable for thepre&editated 'illin# of Senator Beni#no S. A+uino, r. and Rolando 1al&an at the M"A on Au#ust $%,%-78 * (hile the chair&an;s &inorit) report (ould e:clude nineteen of the& and li&it as plotters *thesi: persons (ho (ere on the service stairs (hile Senator A+uino (as descendin#* and *1eneralLuther Custodio . . . because the cri&inal plot could not have been planned and i&ple&ented(ithout his intervention.*

!he chair&an (rote in her &inorit) report 5so&e(hat propheticall)6 that *!he epilo#ue to our (or'lies in (hat (ill transpire in accordance (ith the action that the Office of the President &a) thereafter direct to be ta'en. *!he four2&e&ber &a0orit) report 5also propheticall)6 (rote in the epilo#ue 5after(arnin# the forces (ho adhere to an alien and intolerable political ideolo#) a#ainst unscrupulousl)usin# the report *to discredit our traditionall) revered institutions*6, that *the tra#ed) opened our e)esand for the first ti&e confir&ed our (orst fears of (hat unchec'ed evil (ould be capable of doin#.*!he) (rote

!he tas' of the Board (as clear and une+uivocal. !his tas' (as not onl) todeter&ine the facts and circu&stances surroundin# the death of the late for&erSenator. Of #reater si#nificance is the a(eso&e responsibilit) of the Board to upholdri#hteousness over evil, 0ustice over in0ustice, rationalit) over irrationalit),hu&aneness over inhu&anit). !he tas' (as indeed a painful test, the inevitableresult of (hich (ill restore our countr);s honored place a&on# the soverei#n nationsof the free (orld (here peace, la( and order, freedo&, and 0ustice are a (a) of life.

More than an) other event in conte&porar) Philippine histor), the 'illin# of the latefor&er Senator A+uino has brou#ht into sharper focus, the ills pervadin# Philippinesociet). "t (as the concreti4ation of the horror that has been hauntin# this countr) fordecades, routinel) &anifested b) the brea'do(n of peace and order, econo&icinstabilit), subversion, #raft and corruption, and an increasin# nu&ber of abusive


4/33

ele&ents in (hat are other(ise noble institutions in our countr)2the &ilitar) and la(enforce&ent a#encies. e are, ho(ever, convinced that, b) and lar#e, the #reat&a0orit) of the officers and &en of these institutions have re&ained decent andhonorable, dedicated to their noble &ission in the service of our countr) and people.

!he tra#ed) opened our e)es and for the first ti&e confir&ed our (orst fears of (hatunchec'ed evil (ould be capable of doin#. As for&er "sraeli /orei#n Minister AbbaEban observes. *Nobod) (ho has #reat authorit) can be trusted not to #o be)ond itsproper li&its.* Social apath), passivit) and indifference and ne#lect have spa(ned insecret a dar' force that is bent on destro)in# the values held sacred b) freedo&2lovin# people.

!o assert our proper place in the civili4ed (orld, it is i&perative that public officialsshould re#ard public service as a reflection of hu&an "deals in (hich the hi#hestsense of &oral values and inte#rit) are strictl) re+uired.

A tra#ed) li'e that (hich happened on Au#ust $%, %-78, and the crisis that follo(ed,(ould have nor&all) caused the resi#nation of the Chief of the Ar&ed /orces in acountr) (here public office is vie(ed (ith hi#hest estee& and respect and (here the&oral responsibilities of public officials transcend all other considerations.

"t is e+uall) the fact that the then President throu#h all his recorded public acts and state&ents fro&the be#innin# disdained and re0ected his o(n Board;s above findin#s and insisted on the &ilitar)version of 1al&an bein# Nino);s assassin. "n upholdin# this vie( that *there is no involve&ent ofan)one in his #overn&ent in the assassination,* he told David Briscoe 5then AP Manila Bureau Chief in a Radio2!= intervie( on Septe&ber -, %-78 that *" a& convinced that if an) &e&ber of &)#overn&ent (ere involved, " (ould have 'no(n so&eho( ... Even at a fairl) lo( level, " (ould have

'no(n. " 'no( ho( the) thin'. " 'no( (hat the) are thin'in# of.*7


5/33

)our case,* 9 even as he announced that he (ould return the #eneral to his position as A/P Chief *if he is ac+uitted b) theSandi#anba)an.* "n an intervie( on une 3, %-7@ (ith the 1a&&a Photo A#enc), as respondent court (as hearin# the cases, he (as+uoted as sa)in# that *as (ill probabl) be sho(n, those (itnesses 5a#ainst the accused6 are per0ured (itnesses.* 10

"t (as a#ainst this settin# that on Nove&ber %%, %-7@ petitioners Saturnina 1al&an and Re)naldo1al&an, &other and son, respectivel), of the late Rolando 1al&an, and t(ent)2nine 5$-6 otherpetitioners, co&posed of three for&er ustices of this Court, five incu&bent and for&er universit)presidents, a for&er A/P Chief of Staff, outstandin# &e&bers of the Philippine Bar and solid citi4ensof the co&&unit), filed the present action alle#in# that respondents !anodba)an and Sandi#anba)anco&&itted serious irre#ularities constitutin# &istrial and resultin# in &iscarria#e of 0ustice and #rossviolation of the constitutional ri#hts of the petitioners and the soverei#n people of the Philippines todue process of la(. !he) asserted that the !anodba)an did not represent the interest of the people(hen he failed to e:ert #enuine and earnest efforts to present vital and i&portant testi&onial anddocu&entar) evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandi#anba)an ustices (ere biased,pre0udiced and partial in favor of the accused, and that their acts *clouded (ith the #ravest doubtsthe sincerit) of #overn&ent to find out the truth about the A+uino assassination.* Petitioners pra)edfor the i&&ediate issuance of a te&porar) restrainin# order restrainin# the respondentSandi#anba)an fro& renderin# a decision on the &erits in the pendin# cri&inal cases (hich it hadscheduled on Nove&ber $9, %-7@ and that 0ud#&ent be rendered declarin# a &istrial and nullif)in#the proceedin#s before the Sandi#anba)an and orderin# a re2trial before an i&partial tribunal b) anunbiased prosecutor. 10-"

At the hearin# on Nove&ber %7, %-7@ of petitioners; pra)er for issuance of a te&porar) restrainin#order en0oinin# respondent court fro& renderin# a decision in the t(o cri&inal cases before it, theCourt resolved b) nine2to2t(o votes 11 to issue the restrainin# order pra)ed for. !he Court also #ranted petitioners a five2da)period to file a repl) to respondents; separate co&&ents and respondent !anodba)an a three2da) period to sub&it a cop) of his 732pa#e&e&orandu& for the prosecution as filed in the Sandi#anba)an, the si#nature pa#e of (hich alone had been sub&itted to the Court as Anne: @ of his co&&ent.

But ten da)s later on Nove&ber $7, %-7@, the Court b) the sa&e nine2to2 t(o2vote ratio inreverse, 12 resolved to dis&iss the petition and to lift the te&porar) restrainin# order issued ten da)s earlier en0oinin# the Sandi#anba)anfro& renderin# its decision. 1? !he sa&e Court &a0orit) denied petitioners; &otion for a ne( @2da) period counted fro& receipt of respondent!anodba)an;s &e&orandu& for the prosecution 5(hich apparentl) (as not served on the& and (hich the) alle#ed (as *ver) &aterial to the+uestion of his partialit), bias and pre0udice* (ithin (hich to f ile a consolidated repl) thereto and to respondents; separate co&&ents, b) anei#ht2to2three vote, (ith ustice 1utierre4 0oinin# the dissenters. 1@

On Nove&ber $-, %-7@, petitioners filed a &otion for reconsideration, alle#in# that the dis&issal didnot indicate the le#al #round for such action and ur#in# that the case be set for a full hearin# on the&erits because if the char#e of partialit) and bias a#ainst the respondents and suppression of vitalevidence b) the prosecution are proven, the petitioners (ould be entitled to the reliefs de&anded!he People are entitled to due process (hich re+uires an i&partial tribunal and an unbiasedprosecutor. "f the State is deprived of a fair opportunit) to prosecute and convict because certain&aterial evidence is suppressed b) the prosecution and the tribunal is not i&partial, then the entireproceedin#s (ould be null and void. Petitioners pra)ed that the Sandi#anba)an be restrained fro&pro&ul#atin# their decision as scheduled ane( on Dece&ber $, %-7@.

On Dece&ber @, %-7@, the Court re+uired the respondents to co&&ent on the &otion forreconsideration but issued no restrainin# order. !hus, on Dece&ber $, %-7@, as scheduled,


6/33

respondent Sandi#anba)an issued its decision ac+uittin# all the accused of the cri&e char#ed,declarin# the& innocent and totall) absolvin# the& of an) civil liabilit). !his &ar'ed another unusualfirst in that respondent Sandi#anba)an in effect convicted the ver) victi& Rolando 1al&an 5(ho (asnot on trial6 as the assassin of Nino) contrar) to the ver) infor&ation and evidence sub&itted b) theprosecution. "n opposition, respondents sub&itted that (ith the Sandi#anba)an;s verdict of ac+uittal,

the instant case had beco&e &oot and acade&ic. On /ebruar) 3, %-7 , the sa&e Court &a0orit)denied petitioners; &otion for reconsideration for lac' of &erit, (ith the (riter and ustice AbadSantos &aintainin# our dissent.

On March $9, %-7 , petitioners filed their &otion to ad&it their second &otion for reconsiderationattached there(ith. !he thrust of the second &otion for reconsideration (as the startlin# andtheretofore un'no(n revelations of Deput) !anodba)an Manuel


7/33

Deput) !anodba)an Manuel


8/33

after 5not "/6 the) are ac+uitted, double 0eopard) (ould inure. !he for&er Presidentordered then that the resolution be revised b) cate#ori4in# the participation of eachrespondent.

"n the &atter of custod) of the accused pendente lite the Coordinator (as ordered to

#et in touch (ith 1en. Narciso Cabrera, 1en. =icente Eduardo and Director oll)Bu#arin to put on record that the) had no place in their respective institutions. !hee:istence of PD No. %-@9 5#ivin# custod) to co&&andin# officers of &e&bers of A/P char#ed in court6 (as never &entioned.

"t (as decided that the presidin# 0ustice 5/irst Division6 (ould personall) handle thetrial, and assurance (as &ade b) hi& that it (ould be finished in four to si: &onths,pointin# out that, (ith the recent effectivit) of the Ne( Rules on Cri&inal Procedure,the trial could be e:pedited.

!o(ards the end of the t(o2hour &eetin# and after the script had been tacitl)

&apped out, the for&er President uttered *Ma# &oro2&oro na lan# 'a)o.*!he partin# (ords of the for&er President (ere *!han' )ou for )our cooperation. "'no( ho( to reciprocate.*

hile still in the palace #rounds on the (a) out, the undersi#ned &anifested hisdesire to the !anodba)an to resi#n fro& the panel, or even the office. !his, as (ell asother &oves to this effect, had al(a)s been refused.


9/33


10/33

3. Later in the conference, ho(ever, President Marcos (as convinced of theadvisabilit) of filin# the &urder char#e in court so that, after bein# ac+uitted asplanned, the accused &a) no lon#er be prosecuted in vie( of the doctrine of double 0eopard).

@. Presu&abl) in order to be assured that not all of the accused (ould be denied baildurin# the trial, considerin# that the) (ould be char#ed (ith capital offenses,President Marcos directed that the several accused be *cate#ori4ed* so that so&e ofthe& (ould &erel) be char#ed as acco&plices and accessories.

. "n addition to said directive, President Marcos ordered that the case be handledpersonall) b) ustice Pa&aran (ho should dispose of it in the earliest possible ti&e.

. !he instructions #iven in the Malacanan# conference (ere follo(ed to the letterand co&pliance there(ith &anifested itself in several specific instances in the courseof the proceedin#s, such as, the chan#in# of the resolution of the special

investi#atin# panel, the filin# of the case (ith the Sandi#anba)an and its assi#n&entto ustice Pa&aran, suppression of so&e vital evidence, harass&ent of (itnesses,recantation of (itneses (ho #ave adverse testi&on) before the A#rava Board,coachin# of defense counsels, the hast) trial, &onitorin# of proceedin#s, and even inthe ver) decision rendered in the case.

7. !hat that e:pression of President Marcos; desire as to ho( he (anted the A+uino21al&an case to be handled and disposed of constituted sufficient pressure on thoseinvolved in said tas' to co&pl) (ith the sa&e in the subse+uent course of theproceedin#s.

-. !hat (hile ustice Pa&aran and ustice /ernande4 &anifested no revulsiona#ainst co&pl)in# (ith the MalacaIan# directive, 0ustice


11/33


12/33

the course of the discussion, &ention (as &ade that the filin# of the char#e in court(ould at least &ollif) public de&ands and possibl) prevent further streetde&onstrations. "t (as further pointed out that such a procedure (ould be a betterarran#e&ent because, if the accused are char#ed in court and subse+uentl)ac+uitted, the) &a) clai& the benefit of the doctrine of double 0eopard) and thereb)

avoid another prosecution if so&e other (itnesses shall appear (hen PresidentMarcos is no lon#er in office.

::: ::: :::

After an a#ree&ent (as reached as to filin# the case, instead of dis&issin# it, but(ith so&e of the accused to be char#ed &erel) as acco&plices or accessories, andthe +uestion of preventive custod) of the accused havin# thereb) receivedsatisfactor) solution, President Marcos too' up the &atter of (ho (ould tr) the caseand ho( lon# it (ould ta'e to be finished.

Accordin# to ustice


13/33

!he facts set forth above are all supported b) the evidence on record. "n the &ind ofthe Co&&ission, the onl) conclusion that &a) be dra(n therefro& is that pressurefro& Malacanan# had indeed been &ade to bear on both the court and theprosecution in the handlin# and disposition of the A+uino21al&an case. T e intensit+ of t is pressure is readil+ dedu ti"le from t e personalit+ of t e one 1 o e(erted it,

is moral and offi ial as endan + o&er t ose to 1 om is instru tions 1ere dire ted,t e moti&ation "e ind su instru tions, and t e nature of t e go&ernment pre&ailingat t at time 1 i ena"led, t e t en ead of state to e(er ise aut oritarian po1ers .!hat the conference called to s ript or stage2manage t e prose ution and trial of the A+uino21al&an case (as considered as somet ing anomalous t at s ould "e 3epta1a+ from t e pu"li e+e is s o1n "+ t e effort to assure its se re +. None but thosedirectl) involved (ere caned to attend. !he &eetin# (as held in an inner roo& of thePalace. Onl) the /irst Lad) and Presidential Le#al Assistant ustice La4aro (ere (iththe President. !he conferees (ere told to ta3e t e "a 3 door in #oin# to the roo&(here the &eetin# (as held, presu&abl) to escape notice b) the visitors in thereception hall (aitin# to see the President. Actuall), no pu"li mention alas e&er

made of t is onferen e until Justi e Herrera made is e(pose some fifteen /780mont s later 1 en t e former president 1as no longer around.

President Marcos undoubtedl) reali4ed the i&portance of the &atter he (anted tota'e up (ith the officials he as'ed to be su&&oned. He ad to do it personall+ , andnot &erel) throu#h trusted assistants. !he lac' of (ill or deter&ination on the part of

ustice /ernande4 and ustice Pa&aran to resist the presidential su&&ons despitetheir reali4ation of its un(holeso&e i&plications on their handlin# of the celebrated&urder case &a) be easil) inferred fro& their un+uestioned obedience thereto. Noeffort to resist (as &ade, despite the e:istence of a &ost valid reason to be# off, onthe la&e e:cuses that the) (ent there out of *curiosit),* or *out of respect to the

Office of the President,* or that it (ould be ;unbeco&in# to refuse a su&&ons fro&the President.; Such fra&e of &ind onl) reveals their susceptibilit) to presidentialpressure and lac' of capacit) to resist the sa&e. T e &er+ a ts of "eing summonedto Mala anang and t eir read+ a 9uies en e t ereto under t e ir umstan es t eno"taining, are in t emsel&es pressure dramatized and e(emplified !heir ab0ectdeference to President Marcos &a) li'e(ise be inferred fro& the ad&itted factthat, not a&ing "een gi&en seats durin# the t(o2hour conference 5 ustice /ernande4said it (as not that lon#, but did not sa) ho( lon#6 in (hich President Marcos did thetal'in# &ost of the ti&e, the) listened to hi& on their feet. =eril), it can be saidthat an+ a&o1al of independent a tion or resistan e to presidential pressure "e ameillusor+ from t e &er+ moment t e+ stepped inside Mala anang $ala e on Januar+

7:, 7;


14/33

several specific incidents and instances it enu&erated in the Report under the headin# of*Manifestations of Pressure and Manipulation.*

Suffice it to #ive hereinbelo( brief e:cerpts J

%. !he chan#in# of the ori#inal theaccused;s? eventual scripted ac+uittal. nfavorable evidences (ere sou#ht to be suppressed, andso&e (ere indeed prevented fro& bein# ventilated. Adverse (itnesses (ere harassed, ca0oled,per0ured or threatened either to refrain fro& testif)in# or to testif) in a &anner favorable to thedefense.*

!he Report specified the ordeals of the prosecution (itnesses 21 Cesar Loterina , PAL e&plo)ee, Ro"ertaMasi"a+, 1al&an;s step2dau#hter (ho recanted their testi&onies before the /act /indin# Board and had to be discarded as prosecution(itnesses before at the trial. itnesses Vies a and Ra>as (ho also testified before the Board *disappeared all of a sudden and could not belocated b) the police. !he Co&&ission narrated the efforts to stifle ?i+os i @a3ami+a e)e(itness (ho acco&panied Nino) on his fateful

fli#ht on Au#ust $%, %-78 and described the& as *palpable, if crude and displa)5in#6 sheer abuse of po(er.* a'a&i)a (as not even allo(edto return to Manila on Au#ust $9, %-73 to participate in the first death anniversar) of Nino) but (as deported as an undesirable alien and hadto leave on the ne:t plane for !o')o. !he Board had to #o to !o')o to hear a'a&i)a #ive his testi&on) before the apanese police inaccordance (ith their la( and a'a&i)a clai&ed before the Co&&ission that the En#lish transcription of his testi&on), as prepared b) anofficial of the Philippine E&bass) in !o')o, (as inaccurate and did not correctl) reflect the testi&on) he #ave *althou#h there (as no clearsho(in# of the discrepanc) fro& the ori#inal transcription (hich (as in Nippon#o. pon his arr ival at the M"A on Au#ust $%, %-7@ oninvitation of ustice


15/33

... ndoubtedl) in vie( of the considerable si#nificance of her proposed testi&on)and its unfavorable effect on the cause of the defense, the efforts e:erted tosuppress the sa&e (as as &uch as, if not &ore than those in the case of a'a&i)a.... She recounted that she (as in constant fear of her life, havin# been hunted b)ar&ed &en that their house in !abaco, Alba) (as ransac'ed, her fa&il) harassed b)

the foreclosure of the &ort#a#e on their house b) the local Rural Ban', and e0ectedtherefro& (hen she i#nored the re+uest of its &ana#er to tal' (ith her about herproposed testi&on) that a certain illia& /ariIas offered her plane tic'ets for a tripabroad that Ma)or Rud) /ariIas of Laoa# Cit) 'ept on callin# her sister in the

nited States to (arn her not to testif) that, later, Rud) and illia& /ariIas offeredher t(o &illion pesos supposedl) co&in# fro& Bon#bon# Marcos, a house and lot inBa#uio, the droppin# of her estafa case in


16/33

8. T e dis arding of t e affida&its e(e uted "+ U.). airmen * hile it is true that the .S. air&en;sproposed testi&onies (ould sho( an atte&pt of the Philippine Air /orce to divert the plane to Basa Airfield or so&e other place, such sho(in# (ould not necessaril) contravene the theor) of theprosecution, nor the actual fact that Senator A+uino (as 'illed at the Manila "nternational Airport.

ustice a#ainst the e:clusion of the testi&onies #iven b) the&ilitar) respondents headed b) 1en. =er before the /act /indin# Board?, the latter al&osti&&ediatel) announced to &edia that he (as not filin# a &otion for the reconsideration of saiddenial for the reason that it (ould be futile to do so and foolhard) to e:pect a favorable action on thesa&e. ...


17/33

su&&oned at %$ $9 p.&. or onl+ 7< minutes after t e filing of t e t1o -nformations . Such speed in theactual assi#n&ent of the case can trul) be cate#ori4ed as unusual, if not e:traordinar), considerin#that before a case filed &a) be included in the raffle, there is need for a certain a&ount of paper(or' to be underta'en. "f such preli&inar) re+uire&ents (ere done in this case (ithin the li&itedti&e available therefor, the char#e that the raffle (as rushed to avoid the presence of &edia people

(ould rin# (ith truth.hat is &ore intri#uin# is the fact that althou#h a raffle &i#ht have been actuall) conducted (hich

resulted in the assi#n&ent of the case to the /irst Division of the Sandi#anba)an, the Co&&issiondid not receive an) evidence on ho( or (h) it (as handled personall) b) ustice Pa&aran (ho(rote the decision thereof, and not b) an) one of the t(o other &e&bers of his division. . . .

. T e ustod+ of t e a used t eir onfinement in a militar+ amp, instead of in a i&ilian 5ail= * henthe +uestion of custod) ca&e up after the case (as filed in the Sandi#anba)an, the latter issued anorder directin# the confine&ent of the accused in the Cit) ail of Manila. !his order (as not carriedout in vie( of the infor&ation #iven b) the arden of the Cit) ail that there (as no space for the

t(ent)2si: accused in said 0ail. !he sa&e infor&ation (as #iven (hen the custod) (as proposed tobe #iven to the National Penitentiar) in Muntin#lupa and to the National Bureau of "nvesti#ation. Atthat point, the defense ca&e up (ith Presidential Decree No. %-@9A (hich authori4es the custod) ofthe accused &ilitar) personnel (ith their respective Co&&andin# Officers. ustice


18/33

inte#ral part of the scenario (hich (as cleverl) desi#ned to acco&plish t(o principal ob0ectives,see&in#l) conflictin# in the&selves, but favorable both to then ad&inistration and to the accused to(it, >%? the satisfaction of the public cla&or for the suspected 'illers of Senator A+uino to be char#edin court, and >$? the foreclosure of an) possibilit) that the) &a) a#ain be prosecuted for the sa&eoffense in the event that President Marcos shall no lon#er be in po(er.

-n rendering its de ision t e )andigan"a+an o&erdid itself in fa&oring t e presidentialdire ti&e. "ts "ias and partialit+ in fa&or of t e a used 1as glaringl+ o"&ious. T e e&iden e

presented "+ t e prose ution 1as totall+ ignored and disregarded. ... "t (as dee&ed not sufficient tosi&pl) ac+uit all of the t(ent)2si: accused on the standard ground t at t eir guilt ad not "een

pro&en "e+ond reasona"le dou"t, as (as the &ost lo#ical and appropriate (a) of 0ustif)in# theac+uittal in the case, there not bein# a total absence of evidence that could sho( #uilt on the part ofthe accused. T e de ision ad to pronoun e t em inno ent of t e rime char#ed on the t(oinfor&ations, and a ordingl+, t e+ in ur neit er riminal nor i&il lia"ilit+. -t is a rare p enomenon tosee a person a used of a rime to "e fa&ored 1it su total a"solution. ...

Doubt on the soundness of the decision entertained b) one of the t(o 0ustices (ho concurred (iththe &a0orit) decision penned b) ustice Pa&aran (as re&ealed "+ Justi e Herrera (ho testifiedthat in % to"er, 7;


19/33

%.


20/33

&en 26-"6 &ade it possible to refer the cases to the Sandi#anba)an, can be an i&partial court, (hich is the ver) essence of due process of la(. As the (riter then (rote, *0urisdiction over cases should be deter&ined b) la(, and not b) presele tion of the E:ecutive, (hich could be&uch too easil) transfor&ed into a &eans of predetermining the outco&e of individual cases. 26-b *!his cri&inal collusion as to the handlin#and treat&ent of the cases b) public respondents at the secret Malacanan# conference 5and revealed onl) after fifteen &onths b) usticeManuel Ma) $@, %- 8?, @% SCRA 7 Shell Co. vs. Ena#e, L289%%%2%$, 3- SCRA 3% >/eb. $ , %- 8?6. An) 0ud#&ent or decision renderednot(ithstandin# such violation &a) be re#arded as a *la(less thin#, (hich can betreated as an outla( and slain at si#ht, or i#nored (herever it e:hibits its head*5Aduca)en vs. /lores, supra 6.


21/33

Respondent ud#e;s dis&issal order dated ul) , %- bein# null and void for lac'of 0urisdiction, the sa&e does not constitute a proper basis for a clai& of double 0eopard) 5Serino vs. Kosa, supra 6.

::: ::: :::

Le#al 0eopard) attaches onl) 5a6 upon a valid indict&ent, 5b6 before a co&petentcourt, 5c6 after arrai#n&ent, 5d6 a valid plea havin# been entered and 5e6 the case(as dis&issed or other(ise ter&inated (ithout the e:press consent of the accused5People vs. la#an, @7 Phil. 7@%6.T e lo1er ourt 1as not ompetent as it 1asousted of its 5urisdi tion 1 en it &iolated t e rig t of t e prose ution to due pro ess.

-n effe t t e first 5eopard+ 1as ne&er terminated , and the re&and of the cri&inal casefor further hearin# and or trial before the lo(er courts a&ounts &erel) to acontinuation of the first 0eopard), and does not e:pose the accused to a second 0eopard).

More so does the rule a#ainst the invo'in# of double 0eopard) hold in the cases at bar (here as (ehave held, the sha& trial (as but a &oc' trial (here the authoritarian president ordered respondentsSandi#anba)an and !anodba)an to ri# the trial and closel) &onitored the entire proceedin#s toassure the pre2deter&ined final outco&e of ac+uittal and total absolution as innocent of an therespondents2accused. Not(ithstandin# the laudable efforts of ustice


22/33

respondent Courts; Resolution of ac+uittal (as a void 0ud#&ent for havin# been issued (ithout 0urisdiction. No double 0eopard) attaches, therefore. A void 0ud#&ent is, in le#al effect, no 0ud#&entat all B) it no ri#hts are divested. !hrou#h it, no ri#hts can be attained. Bein# (orthless, allproceedin#s founded upon it are e+uall) (orthless. "t neither binds nor bars an)one. All actsperfor&ed under it and all clai&s flo(in# out of it are void.

lan#%988 ::: ::: :::

*Private respondent invo'e ;0ustice for the innocent;. /or 0ustice to prevail the scales &ust balance. "tis not to be dispensed for the accused alone. !he interests of the societ), (hich the) have (ron#ed&ust also be e+uall) considered. A 0ud#&ent of conviction is not necessaril) a denial of 0ustice. Averdict of ac+uittal neither necessaril) spells a triu&ph of 0ustice. !o the part) (ron#ed, to the societ)offended, it could also &ean in0ustice. !his is (here the Courts pla) a vital role. !he) render 0ustice(here 0ustice is due. ?0

$. Motion to 6is9ualif+ -n i"it s ould a&e "een resol&ed A ead.2 !he private prosecutors had filed a

&otion to dis+ualif) and for inhibition of respondents ustices of the Sandi#anba)an on #rounds of&anifest bias and partialit) to the defense and arisin# fro& then Att). 5no( !anodba)an6 Raul M.1on4ales; char#e that ustice =era2Cru4 had been passin# coachin# notes to defense counsel.

ustice


23/33

!he action for prohibition (as filed in the Court to see' the dis+ualification of respondents usticespursuant to the procedure reco#ni4ed b) the Court in the %- - case of $aredes &s. Gopeng o ?? sincean adverse rulin# b) respondent court &i#ht result in a verdict of ac+uittal, leavin# the offended part) (ithout an) re&ed) nor appeal in vie(of the double 0eopard) rule, not to &ention the overidin# and transcendental public interest that (ould &a'e out a case of denial of dueprocess to the People if the al le#ed failure on the part of the !anodba)an to present the co&plete evidence for the prosecution issubstantiated. ?@

"n this case, petitioners; &otion for reconsideration of the abrupt dis&issal of their petition and liftin#of the te&porar) restrainin# order en0oinin# the Sandi#anba)an fro& renderin# its decision had beenta'en co#ni4ance of b) the Court (hich had re+uired the respondents;, includin# theSandi#anba)an;s, co&&ents. Althou#h no restrainin# order (as issued ane(, respondentSandi#anba)an should not have precipitatel) issued its decision of total absolution of all the accusedpendin# the final action of this Court. !his is the teachin# of Valdez &s. A9uilizan ? , herein the court insettin# aside the hast) convictions, ruled that *prudence dictated that 5respondent 0ud#e6 refrain fro& decidin# the cases or at the ver) leastto hold in abe)ance the pro&ul#ation of his decision pendin# action b) this Court. But prudence #ave (a) to i&prudence the respondent 0ud#e acted precipitatel) b) decidin# the cases >hastil) (ithout a(aitin# this Court;s action?. All of the acts of the respondent 0ud#e &anifest#rave abuse of discretion on his part a&ountin# to lac' of 0urisdiction (hich substantivel) pre0udiced the petitioner.*

8. Re= %"5e tions of respondents.2 !he other related ob0ections of respondents; counsels &ust bere0ected in the face of the Court;s declaration that the trial (as a &oc' trial and that the pre2deter&ined 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal (as unla(ful and void a" initio.

5a6 "t follo(s that there is no need to resort to a direct action to annul the 0ud#&ent, instead of thepresent action (hich (as ti&el) filed initiall) to declare a &istrial and to en0oin the rendition of thevoid 0ud#&ent. And after the hast) rendition of such 0ud#&ent for the declaration of its nullit),follo(in# the presentation of co&petent proof heard b) the Co&&ission and the Court;s findin#stherefro& that the proceedin#s (ere fro& the be#innin# vitiated not onl) b) lac' of due process butalso b) the collusion bet(een the public respondents 5court and !anodba)an6 for the rendition of apre2deter&ined verdict of ac+uittin# all the t(ent)2si: respondents2accused.

5b6 "t is &anifest that this does not involve a case of &ere irre#ularities in the conduct of theproceedin#s or errors of 0ud#&ent (hich do not affect the inte#rit) or validit) of the 0ud#&ent orverdict.

5c6 !he contention of one of defense counsel that the State and the soverei#n people are not entitledto due process is clearl) erroneous and contrar) to the basic principles and 0urisprudence citedhereinabove.

5d6 !he sub&ittal of respondents2accused that the) had not e:erted the pressure applied b) theauthoritarian president on public respondents and that no evidence (as suppressed a#ainst the&&ust be held to be untenable in the (a'e of the evil plot no( e:posed for their preordained(holesale e:oneration.

5e6 Respondents; invocation of the (riter;s opinion in Luzon Bro3erage Co., -n . &s. Maritime Bldg.Co., -n . ?6 is inappropriate. !he (riter therein held that a part) should be entitled to onl) one Supre&e Court and &a) not speculate onvital chan#es in the Court;s &e&bership for revie( of his lost case once &ore, since public polic) and sound practice de&and that liti#ationbe put to an end and no second pro forma &otion for reconsideration reiteratin# the sa&e ar#u&ents should be 'ept pendin# so lon# 5forover si: 5 6 )ears and one 5%6 &onth since the denial of the first &otion for reconsideration6, !his opinion cannot be properl) invo'ed,because here, petitioners; second &otion for reconsideration (as filed pro&ptl) on March $9, %-7 follo(in# the denial under date of/ebruar) 3th of the first &otion for reconsideration and the sa&e (as ad&it ted per the Court;s Resolution of April 8, %-7 and is no( bein#


24/33

resolved (ithin five &onths of its filin# after the Co&&ission had received the evidence of the parties (ho (ere heard b) the Court onl) last Au#ust $ th. !he second &otion for reconsideration is based on an entirel) ne( &aterial #round (hich (as not 'no(n at the ti&e of thedenial of the petition and fil in# of the first &otion for reconsideration, i.e, the secret MalacaIan# conference on anuar) %9, %-7@ (hich ca&eto li#ht onl) fifteen &onths later in March, %-7 and sho(ed be)ond per adventure 5as proved in the Co&&ission hearin#s6 the &erits of thepetition and that the authoritarian president had dictated and pre2deter&ined the final outco&e of ac+uittal.


25/33

=as+ue4, chair&an, and retired Court of Appeals ustices Mila#ros 1er&an and Eduardo Ca#uioaas &e&bers. "n the pure spirit of public service, the) rendered selflessl) and (ithout re&unerationthorou#h co&petent and dedicated service in dischar#in# their tas's of hearin# and receivin# theevidence, evaluatin# the sa&e and sub&ittin# their Report and findin#s to the Court (ithin thescheduled period and #reatl) easin# the Court;s burden.

ACCORD"N1L , petitioners; second &otion for reconsideration is #ranted. !he resolutions ofNove&ber $7, %-7@ dis&issin# the petition and of /ebruar) 3, %-7 den)in# petitioners; &otion forreconsideration are hereb) set aside and in lieu thereof, 0ud#&ent is hereb) rendered nullif)in# theproceedin#s in respondent Sandi#anba)an and its 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal in Cri&inal Cases Nos.%99%9 and %99%% entitled$eople of t e $ ilippines &s. Gen. Lut er Custodia et al. and orderin# are2trial of the said cases (hich should be conducted (ith deliberate dispatch and (ith careful re#ardfor the re+uire&ents of due process, so that the truth &a) be finall) 'no(n and 0ustice done to an

!his resolution is i&&ediatel) e:ecutor). SO ORDERED.

ap, Cruz, $aras and 'eli iano, JJ., on ur.

'eria, DDDD 'ernan and #ar&asa , DDDDD JJ., too3 no part.

Sep"r"te Op # o#4

MELENCIO-+ERRERA,J., concurrin#

Consistent (ith (hat " had perceived as the need to establish the truth behind the viciousassassination of the late Senator Beni#no A+uino, as e:pressed in &) dissentin# opinion in 1al&anvs. Pa&aran 5%87 SCRA $-3, 8 - >%-7@?6, and so that 0ustice &a) be done, " vote for the re2trialpra)ed for b) petitioners.

!here is reason to believe that so&e vital evidence had been suppressed b) the prosecution, or thatit had disre#arded, as i&&aterial or irrelevant, evidence (hich, if presented, could affect theoutco&e of the case. As it is, the prosecution failed to full) ventilate its position and to la) out before

respondent Court all the pertinent facts (hich could have helped that Court in arrivin# at a 0ustdecision. "t had, thus, failed in its tas'.

A public prosecutor is ;the representative not of an ordinar) part) to a controvers),but of a soverei#nt) (hose obli#ation to #overn i&partiall) is as co&pellin# as itsobli#ation to #overn at all and (hose interest, therefore, in a cri&inal prosecution isnot that it sha# (in a case but that 0ustice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiarand ever) definite sense the servant of the la(, the t(o2fold ai& of (hich is that guilt


26/33

s all not es ape or inno en e suffer. >E&phasis supplied? 5Suare4 vs. Platon, -Phil. @@ >%-39?6

%-37?6.

Respondent Court, in sho(in# partialit) for the accused fro& be#innin# to end, fro& the raffle of thesub0ect cases to the pro&ul#ation of 0ud#&ent, (hich absolved the accused, en masse , fro& an)and an liabilit), is e+uall) culpable for &iscarria#e of 0ustice. Due process of la(, (hich *re+uires ahearin# before an i&partial and disinterested tribunal* and the ri#ht of ever) liti#ant to *nothin# lessthan the cold neutralit) of an i&partial ud#e* 51utierre4 vs. Santos, %%$ Phil. %73 >%- %? Castillo vs.

uan, $ SCRA %$3 >%- @?6, (as violated.

!he proceedin#s belo(, havin# been vitiated b) lac' of due process, to the detri&ent of the Stateand the People, (ere invalid and the 0ud#&ent rendered null and void a" initio . !here havin# beenno trial at all in conte&plation of la(, there is li'e(ise no 0ud#&ent on (hich a plea of double 0eopard) &a) be based. *!o entitle the accused to the plea of for&er 0eopard) the proceedin#s &usthave been valid 5State vs. Bartlett, % 3 N. ., @ State vs. O;Da) %7@ So. $-96. !he lac' of an)funda&ental re+uisite (hich (ould render void the 0ud#&ent (ould &a'e ineffective a plea of 0eopard) based on such proceedin#s 5Steen vs. State, $3$ S. . %93 6.

!he accused, ho(ever, ar#ue that double 0eopard) attaches for, even assu&in# (ithout concedin#,that pressure and collusion did ta'e place, the) (ere not a part) to the sa&e and, for those (ho(ere char#ed onl) either as acco&plices or accessories, the) contend that their alle#ed offense

involved onl) a cover2up in the investi#ation of the cri&es so that, (hatever pressure (as e:ertedcould onl) have benefited the principals, conse+uentl), to sub0ect the& to a re2trial is to put the&t(ice in 0eopard).

"t is true that (here an accused (as not a part) to the fraud, a conviction secured fraudulentl) b) theState;s officer cannot be avoided b) the state 5State vs.


27/33

!he proceedin#s belo( havin# been fatall) fla(ed b) pressure, fraud and collusion, (ith the le#alconse+uence that there (as no trial and 0ud#&ent to spea' of, and under the circu&stances peculiar onl) to these cases, " v te for a re2trial in the interest of truth and the ends of public 0ustice. As in allcri&inal proceedin#s, ho(ever, the accused &ust be #uaranteed a fair, speed), and i&partial re2trialbefore an unbiased !ribunal and prosecutor and, " &i#ht add, safe#uarded a#ainst trial b) publicit).

ALAMPA ,J., concurrin#

Considerin# that certain si#nificant facts and circu&stances not previousl) disclosed to the Court(ere found b) the Co&&ission constituted b) this Court, purposel) to in+uire and ascertain theveracit) of the sa&e, to be dul) established b) sufficient evidence and are indicative of *a scriptedand pre2deter&ined &anner of handlin# and disposin# of the A+uino21al&an &urder case ... * andthat there e:ists *ade+uate credible evidence sho(in# that the prosecution in the A+uino21al&ancase and the ustices (ho tried and decided the sa&e acted under the co&pulsion of so&epressure (hich proved to be be)ond their capacit) to resist and (hich not onl) prevented theprosecution to full) ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences it could have other(ise

presented, but also pre2deter&ined the outco&e of the case ...* " 0oin in #rantin# petitioners; second&otion for reconsideration.

"n &) considered vie(, the ends of ustice (ill be best served b) allo(in# the trial ane( of thesub0ect cases in order to ulti&atel) obtain a 0ud#&ent that (ill be re&oved fro& an) suspicion ofattendant irre#ularities. ith the #reatest si#nificance bein# #iven b) our people to the said cases,(hich are evidentl) of historical i&portance, " a& readil) persuaded that it is to our national interestthat all relevant evidence that &a) be no( available be provided an opportunit) to be received and&ade 'no(n so that (hatever is the actual truth can be ri#htfull) ascertained. ", therefore, vote for adeclaration of &istrial and for nullif)in# the proceedin#s of the referred Cri&inal Cases Nos. %99%9and %99%% before the Sandi#anba)an and the orderin# of are trial.

GUTIERRE', JR., . concurrin#

On Nove&ber $7, %-7@, this Court dis&issed the petition for certiorari and prohibition (ithpreli&inar) in0unction and lifted a !e&porar) Restrainin# Order earlier #ranted. e are no( actin#on a &otion for reconsideration filed b) the petitioners.

hen the Court initiall) dis&issed the petition, " issued a separate concurrin# and dissentin#opinion. !he issues before us (ere novel and &o&entous. " felt that in i&&ediatel) dis&issin# thepetition, (e (ere den)in# the petitioners ever) reasonable opportunit) to prove their alle#ations ofnon2independent and biased conduct of both the prosecution and the trial court. " stated that the

issues of &iscarria#e of 0ustice and due process arisin# fro& that conduct should be allo(ed &oree:tended treat&ent. ith then Associate ustices Claudio !eehan'ee and =icente Abad Santos, ",therefore, dissented fro& the Court;s resolution den)in# the petitioners; &otions to continuepresentin# their case.

Since the &a0orit) of the Court, ho(ever, had decided to resolve the petition on its &erits and thefindin#s of the =as+ue4 Co&&ission (ere still for the future, " concurred in the result of this Court;saction on t(o #rounds25%6 the ri#ht of the accused to speed) trial and 5$6 the presu&ption in la( that


28/33

0udicial acts are re#ularl) perfor&ed and that public officers have dischar#ed their duties inaccordance (ith la(.

!he findin#s of the =as+ue4 Co&&ission no( confir& &) initial &is#ivin#s and &ore than overco&ethe presu&ption of re#ular perfor&ance of official dut) upon (hich " based &) concurrence.

hat (ere so&e of these &is#ivin#s no( #iven substance b) the investi#ation

Mistrial is usuall) raised b) the accused. "n this petition neither the accused nor the prosecution sa(an)thin# (ron# in the proceedin#s. e had the unusual pheno&enon of the relatives of one victi&,pro&inent la()ers and la( professors, and retired ustices assu&in# the unco&&on role of alle#in#not onl) a biased Sandi#anba)an but also a !anodba)an holdin# bac' its o(n evidence. "nstead ofallo(in# the heated passions and e&otions #enerated b) the A+uino assassination to cool off or diedo(n, the accused insisted on the i&&ediate rendition of a decision.

!he Sandi#anba)an is usuall) sober and respectful in its relations (ith the Supre&e Court. ",

therefore, found it stran#e and unfortunate (h), in its Co&&ent, the Sandi#anba)an should +uestionour authorit) to loo' into the e:ercise of its 0urisdiction. !here (as the further &atter of televisionca&eras durin# trial, their effect on the (itnesses and the 0ud#es, and other &ischievouspotentialities.

!he report of the =as+ue4 Co&ission no( sho(s that there (as &ore to these &is#ivin#s andsuspicions than appeared in the records at that ti&e. !he Court;s opinion penned b) the Chief

ustice states in detail (h) the Sandi#anba)an (as not an i&partial tribunal and the !anodba)an notan unbiased prosecutor.

!he ri#ht a#ainst double 0eopard) is intended to protect a#ainst repeated liti#ations and continuous

harass&ent of a person (ho has alread) under#one the a#on) of prosecution and trial for one andthe sa&e offense. "t certainl) (as never intended to cover a situation (here the prosecutionsuppresses so&e of its o(n evidence, (here the accused correctl) and ea#erl) anticipate a 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal, and (here the court appears to have &ade up its &ind even before trial hasstarted.

nder the circu&stances found b) the =as+ue4 Co&&ission, there (as a failure of trial tanta&ountto no trial at all. A *&oro2&oro* could not possibl) result in a 0ust or valid decision.

" a&, ho(ever, constrained to (rite this separate opinion to e&phasi4e a concern of this Court andof an /ilipinos (ho (ant #enuine 0ustice to be reali4ed in this case.

"n the sa&e (a) that (e deplore the pressures and partialit) (hich led to the 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal(e &ust insure that absolutel) no indication of bias, pre20ud#&ent, or vindictiveness shall taint theretrial of this case. !he fairl) stron# lan#ua#e used b) the Court in its &ain opinion underscores the#ravit) (ith (hich it vie(s the travesties of 0ustice in this *trial of the centur).* At the sa&e ti&e,nothin# e:pressed in our opinion should be interpreted as the Supre&e Court;s &a'in# a factualfindin#, one (a) or another, about the perpetrators of the A+uino or the 1al&an 'illin#. An)state&ents about the circu&stances of the assassination or about the &ilitar) version of the 'illin#s


29/33

are intended solel) for one issue (hether or not the Sandi#anba)an ac+uittals should be set asideand a retrial ordered.

Neither our final resolution of this petition, the stature of the persons involved, pa3i3isama, utang naloo" for an appoint&ent or reappoint&ent, or an) other e:traneous &atters should color or influence

the future course of this case.Needless to sa), an) person (ho, in the past, &a) have for&all) e:pressed opinions about theinnocence or #uilt of the accused should be neither a prosecutor or 0ud#e in an) forthco&in# trial. "tis not enou#h for the future proceedin#s to be fair the) should be above an) suspicion of partialit),bias, rancor, or vindictiveness. "t (ould be unfortunate if, in the conduct of further proceedin#s in thiscase, erroneous i&pressions &a) arise that a prosecutor or 0ud#e has pre0ud#ed the #uilt orinnocence of an) accused. %-7@?6, and so that 0ustice &a) be done, " vote for the re2trialpra)ed for b) petitioners.

!here is reason to believe that so&e vital evidence had been suppressed b) the prosecution, or thatit had disre#arded, as i&&aterial or irrelevant, evidence (hich, if presented, could affect theoutco&e of the case. As it is, the prosecution failed to full) ventilate its position and to la) out beforerespondent Court all the pertinent facts (hich could have helped that Court in arrivin# at a 0ustdecision. "t had, thus, failed in its tas'.

A public prosecutor is ;the representative not of an ordinar) part) to a controvers),but of a soverei#nt) (hose obli#ation to #overn i&partiall) is as co&pellin# as itsobli#ation to #overn at all and (hose interest, therefore, in a cri&inal prosecution isnot that it sha# (in a case but that 0ustice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiarand ever) definite sense the servant of the la(, the t(o2fold ai& of (hich is that guilt


30/33

s all not es ape or inno en e suffer. >E&phasis supplied? 5Suare4 vs. Platon, -Phil. @@ >%-39?6

%-37?6.

Respondent Court, in sho(in# partialit) for the accused fro& be#innin# to end, fro& the raffle of thesub0ect cases to the pro&ul#ation of 0ud#&ent, (hich absolved the accused, en masse , fro& an)and an liabilit), is e+uall) culpable for &iscarria#e of 0ustice. Due process of la(, (hich *re+uires ahearin# before an i&partial and disinterested tribunal* and the ri#ht of ever) liti#ant to *nothin# lessthan the cold neutralit) of an i&partial ud#e* 51utierre4 vs. Santos, %%$ Phil. %73 >%- %? Castillo vs.

uan, $ SCRA %$3 >%- @?6, (as violated.

!he proceedin#s belo(, havin# been vitiated b) lac' of due process, to the detri&ent of the Stateand the People, (ere invalid and the 0ud#&ent rendered null and void a" initio . !here havin# beenno trial at all in conte&plation of la(, there is li'e(ise no 0ud#&ent on (hich a plea of double 0eopard) &a) be based. *!o entitle the accused to the plea of for&er 0eopard) the proceedin#s &usthave been valid 5State vs. Bartlett, % 3 N. ., @ State vs. O;Da) %7@ So. $-96. !he lac' of an)funda&ental re+uisite (hich (ould render void the 0ud#&ent (ould &a'e ineffective a plea of 0eopard) based on such proceedin#s 5Steen vs. State, $3$ S. . %93 6.

!he accused, ho(ever, ar#ue that double 0eopard) attaches for, even assu&in# (ithout concedin#,that pressure and collusion did ta'e place, the) (ere not a part) to the sa&e and, for those (ho(ere char#ed onl) either as acco&plices or accessories, the) contend that their alle#ed offense

involved onl) a cover2up in the investi#ation of the cri&es so that, (hatever pressure (as e:ertedcould onl) have benefited the principals, conse+uentl), to sub0ect the& to a re2trial is to put the&t(ice in 0eopard).

"t is true that (here an accused (as not a part) to the fraud, a conviction secured fraudulentl) b) theState;s officer cannot be avoided b) the state 5State vs.


31/33

!he proceedin#s belo( havin# been fatall) fla(ed b) pressure, fraud and collusion, (ith the le#alconse+uence that there (as no trial and 0ud#&ent to spea' of, and under the circu&stances peculiar onl) to these cases, " vote for a re2trial in the interest of truth and the ends of public 0ustice. As in allcri&inal proceedin#s, ho(ever, the accused &ust be #uaranteed a fair, speed), and i&partial re2trialbefore an unbiased !ribunal and prosecutor and, " &i#ht add, safe#uarded a#ainst trial b) publicit).

ALAMPA ,J., concurrin#

Considerin# that certain si#nificant facts and circu&stances not previousl) disclosed to the Court(ere found b) the Co&&ission constituted b) this Court, purposel) to in+uire and ascertain theveracit) of the sa&e, to be dul) established b) sufficient evidence and are indicative of *a scriptedand pre2deter&ined &anner of handlin# and disposin# of the A+uino21al&an &urder case ... * andthat there e:ists *ade+uate credible evidence sho(in# that the prosecution in the A+uino21al&ancase and the ustices (ho tried and decided the sa&e acted under the co&pulsion of so&epressure (hich proved to be be)ond their capacit) to resist and (hich not onl) prevented theprosecution to full) ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences it could have other(ise

presented, but also pre2deter&ined the outco&e of the case ...* " 0oin in #rantin# petitioners; second&otion for reconsideration.

"n &) considered vie(, the ends of ustice (ill be best served b) allo(in# the trial ane( of thesub0ect cases in order to ulti&atel) obtain a 0ud#&ent that (ill be re&oved fro& an) suspicion ofattendant irre#ularities. ith the #reatest si#nificance bein# #iven b) our people to the said cases,(hich are evidentl) of historical i&portance, " a& readil) persuaded that it is to our national interestthat all relevant evidence that &a) be no( available be provided an opportunit) to be received and&ade 'no(n so that (hatever is the actual truth can be ri#htfull) ascertained. ", therefore, vote for adeclaration of &istrial and for nullif)in# the proceedin#s of the referred Cri&inal Cases Nos. %99%9and %99%% before the Sandi#anba)an and the orderin# of are trial.

GUTIERRE', JR., . concurrin#

On Nove&ber $7, %-7@, this Court dis&issed the petition for certiorari and prohibition (ithpreli&inar) in0unction and lifted a !e&porar) Restrainin# Order earlier #ranted. e are no( actin#on a &otion for reconsideration filed b) the petitioners.

hen the Court initiall) dis&issed the petition, " issued a separate concurrin# and dissentin#opinion. !he issues before us (ere novel and &o&entous. " felt that in i&&ediatel) dis&issin# thepetition, (e (ere den)in# the petitioners ever) reasonable opportunit) to prove their alle#ations ofnon2independent and biased conduct of both the prosecution and the trial court. " stated that the

issues of &iscarria#e of 0ustice and due process arisin# fro& that conduct should be allo(ed &oree:tended treat&ent. ith then Associate ustices Claudio !eehan'ee and =icente Abad Santos, ",therefore, dissented fro& the Court;s resolution den)in# the petitioners; &otions to continuepresentin# their case.

Since the &a0orit) of the Court, ho(ever, had decided to resolve the petition on its &erits and thefindin#s of the =as+ue4 Co&&ission (ere still for the future, " concurred in the result of this Court;saction on t(o #rounds25%6 the ri#ht of the accused to speed) trial and 5$6 the presu&ption in la( that


32/33

0udicial acts are re#ularl) perfor&ed and that public officers have dischar#ed their duties inaccordance (ith la(.

!he findin#s of the =as+ue4 Co&&ission no( confir& &) initial &is#ivin#s and &ore than overco&ethe presu&ption of re#ular perfor&ance of official dut) upon (hich " based &) concurrence.

hat (ere so&e of these &is#ivin#s no( #iven substance b) the investi#ation

Mistrial is usuall) raised b) the accused. "n this petition neither the accused nor the prosecution sa(an)thin# (ron# in the proceedin#s. e had the unusual pheno&enon of the relatives of one victi&,pro&inent la()ers and la( professors, and retired ustices assu&in# the unco&&on role of alle#in#not onl) a biased Sandi#anba)an but also a !anodba)an holdin# bac' its o(n evidence. "nstead ofallo(in# the heated passions and e&otions #enerated b) the A+uino assassination to cool off or diedo(n, the accused insisted on the i&&ediate rendition of a decision.

!he Sandi#anba)an is usuall) sober and respectful in its relations (ith the Supre&e Court. ",

therefore, found it stran#e and unfortunate (h), in its Co&&ent, the Sandi#anba)an should +uestionour authorit) to loo' into the e:ercise of its 0urisdiction. !here (as the further &atter of televisionca&eras durin# trial, their effect on the (itnesses and the 0ud#es, and other &ischievouspotentialities.

!he report of the =as+ue4 Co&ission no( sho(s that there (as &ore to these &is#ivin#s andsuspicions than appeared in the records at that ti&e. !he Court;s opinion penned b) the Chief

ustice states in detail (h) the Sandi#anba)an (as not an i&partial tribunal and the !anodba)an notan unbiased prosecutor.

!he ri#ht a#ainst double 0eopard) is intended to protect a#ainst repeated liti#ations and continuous

harass&ent of a person (ho has alread) under#one the a#on) of prosecution and trial for one andthe sa&e offense. "t certainl) (as never intended to cover a situation (here the prosecutionsuppresses so&e of its o(n evidence, (here the accused correctl) and ea#erl) anticipate a 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal, and (here the court appears to have &ade up its &ind even before trial hasstarted.

nder the circu&stances found b) the =as+ue4 Co&&ission, there (as a failure of trial tanta&ountto no trial at all. A *&oro2&oro* could not possibl) result in a 0ust or valid decision.

" a&, ho(ever, constrained to (rite this separate opinion to e&phasi4e a concern of this Court andof an /ilipinos (ho (ant #enuine 0ustice to be reali4ed in this case.

"n the sa&e (a) that (e deplore the pressures and partialit) (hich led to the 0ud#&ent of ac+uittal(e &ust insure that absolutel) no indication of bias, pre20ud#&ent, or vindictiveness shall taint theretrial of this case. !he fairl) stron# lan#ua#e used b) the Court in its &ain opinion underscores the#ravit) (ith (hich it vie(s the travesties of 0ustice in this *trial of the centur).* At the sa&e ti&e,nothin# e:pressed in our opinion should be interpreted as the Supre&e Court;s &a'in# a factualfindin#, one (a) or another, about the perpetrators of the A+uino or the 1al&an 'illin#. An)state&ents about the circu&stances of the assassination or about the &ilitar) version of the 'illin#s


33/33

are intended solel) for one issue (hether or not the Sandi#anba)an ac+uittals should be set asideand a retrial ordered.

Neither our final resolution of this petition, the stature of the persons involved, pa3i3isama, utang naloo" for an appoint&ent or reappoint&ent, or an) other e:traneous &atters should color or influence

the future course of this case.Needless to sa), an) person (ho, in the past, &a) have for&all) e:pressed opinions about theinnocence or #uilt of the accused should be neither a prosecutor or 0ud#e in an) forthco&in# trial. "tis not enou#h for the future proceedin#s to be fair the) should be above an) suspicion of partialit),bias, rancor, or vindictiveness. "t (ould be unfortunate if, in the conduct of further proceedin#s in thiscase, erroneous i&pressions &a) arise that a prosecutor or 0ud#e has pre0ud#ed the #uilt orinnocence of an) accused.

Documents

Galman v Sandiganbayan