Imelda was charged together with Jose Dans for Graft
&Corruption for a dubious transaction done in 1984 while they
were
ocers transacting business with the !ight "ailway #ransit$
#hecase was ra%ed to the 1stDiision of the 'andiganbayan$
#hediision was headed by Justice Garchitorena with J (ala)adia and
J*tien+a as associate )ustices$ ,o decision was reached by
thediision by reason of *tien+a-s dissent in faor of
Imelda-sinnocence$ Garchitorena then summoned a special diision of
the'( to include JJ *mores and Cipriano as additional
members$*mores then as.ed Garchitorena to be gien 1/ days to send
inhis manifestation$ 0n the date of *mores- reuest2
Garchitorena
receied manifestation from J (ala)adia stating that he
agreeswith J "osario who further agrees with J *tien+a$
Garchitorena thenissued a special order to immediately dissole the
special diisionand hae the issue be raised to the '( en banc for it
wouldalready be pointless to wait for *mores- manifestation
grantedthat a ma)ority has already decided on Imelda-s faor$ #he '(
enbanc ruled against Imelda$
ISSUE: 3hether or not due process has been obsered$
HELD:#he 'C ruled that the ruling of the '( is bereft of merit
asthere was no strong showing of Imelda-s guilt$ #he 'C
furtheremphasi+ed that Imelda was depried of due process by reason
ofGarchitorena not waiting for *mores- manifestation$
'uchprocedural aws committed by respondent 'andiganbayan arefatal
to the alidity of its 5decision5 conicting petitioner$Garchitorena
had already created the 'pecial Diision of 6e 7/
)ustices in iew of the lac. of unanimity of the three 7 )ustices
inthe :irst Diision$ *t that stage2 petitioner had a ested right
to
be heard by the 6e 7/ )ustices2 especially the new )ustices in
thepersons of Justices *mores and del "osario who may hae adi;erent
iew of the cases against her$ *t that point2
8/9/2019 Imelda Marcos v Sandiganbayan
2/2
Justice del "osario had already e=pressed his opinion during
aninformal2 unscheduled meeting in the unnamed restaurant but
asaforestated2 that opinion is not the opinion contemplated by
law$(ut what is more2 petitioner was denied the opinion of
Justice
