VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 43 DESOLONG, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA, SGT.

Galman vs. Sandiganbayan PEPITO TORIO, SGT. ARMANDO DELA CRUZ, SGT.
No. L-72670. September 12, 1986.
* PROSPERO A. BONA, CIC ROGELIO MORENO, CIC
SATURNINA GALMAN, REYNALDO GALMAN and MARIO LAZAGA, AIC CORDOVA G. ESTELO, AIC
JOSE P. BENGZON, MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, ANICETO ACUPIDO and HERMILO
_______________
JOAQUIN G. BERNAS; S.J., M. BELLARMINE
BERNAS, O.S.B., FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, SOLITA EN BANC.
*

COLLAS-MONSOD, SANTIAGO DUMLAO, JR., Francis Garchitorena withdrew as co-petitioner in view of his
**

MARIA FERIA, MARCELO B. FERNAN, FRANCISCO appointment and assumption of office as Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan on May 5, 1986, per the Resolution of May 15, 1986.
GARCHITORENA, ANDREW GONZALEZ, JOSE C.
**

44
LAURETA, SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, FELIX K.
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MARAMBA, JR., CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, JAIME V.
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
ONGPIN, FELIX PEREZ, JOSE B.L. REYES, JOSE E.
ROMERO, JR., RAMON DEL ROSARIO, JR., RICARDO GOSUICO, , respondents.
****

Criminal Procedure; Sandiganbayan; Judgments; The

J. ROMULO, AUGUSTO SANCHEZ, EMMANUEL V.
Court approves the Report of its 3-member Commission that
SORIANO, DAVID SYCIP, ENRIQUE SYQUIA, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos stage-managed the
CRISTINA TAN, JESUS VARGAS, BERNARDO M. Aquino-Galman murder cases before the Sandiganbayan.—
VILLEGAS, VICENTE JAYME,***, The Court adopts and approves the Report and its findings
petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION and holds on the basis thereof and of the evidence received
(represented by Justice Manuel Pamaran, Chairman, and appreciated by the Commission and duly supported by the
and Justices Augusto Amores and Bienvenido Vera Cruz, facts of public record and knowledge set forth above and
Members), JUSTICE BERNARDO FERNANDEZ hereinafter, that the then President (code-named Olympus)
(Ombudsman) and GEN. FABIAN C. VER, MAJ. GEN. had stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace “a
PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, BRIG. GEN. LUTHER A. scripted and predetermined manner of handling and
disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;” and that “the
CUSTODIO, COL. ARTURO G. CUSTODIO, COL.
prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who
VICENTE B. TIGAS, JR., CAPT. FELIPE VALERIO,
tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of
CAPT. LLEWELYN KAVINTA, CAPT. ROMEO M. some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to
BAUTISTA, 2nd LT. JESUS CASTRO, SGT. PABLO resist, and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully
MARTINEZ, SGT. ARNULFO DE MESA, SGT. TOMAS ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it
FERNANDEZ, SGT. CLARO LAT. SGT. FILOMENO could have otherwise presented, but also predetermined the
MIRANDA, SGT. ROLANDO C. DE GUZMAN, SGT. final outcome of the case” of total absolution of the twenty-six
ERNESTO M. MATEO, SGT. RODOLFO M. respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability.
 Same; Same; Same.—The Court finds that the of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt
Commission’s Report (incorporated herein by reference) and and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-
findings and conclusions are duly substantiated by the Galman murder cases. As graphically depicted in the
evidence and facts of public record. Composed of distinguished Report, supra, and borne out by the happenings (res ipsa
members of proven integrity with a combined total of 141 loquitur), since the resolution prepared by his “Coordinator,”
years of experience in the practice of law (55 years) and in the Manuel Lazaro, his Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs,
prosecutoral and judicial services (86 years in the trial and for the Tanodbayan’s dismissal of the cases against all accused
appellate courts), experts at sifting the chaff from the grain, was unpalatable (it would summon the demonstrators back to
the Commission properly appraised the evidences presented the streets) and at any rate was not acceptable to the Herrera
and denials made by public respondents, thus: x x x. prosecution panel, the unholy scenario for acquittal of all 26
Same; Same; Same; The evidence adduced, before the accused after the rigged trial as ordered at the Malacañang
Vasquez Commission shows Presidential pressure pervaded conference, would accomplish the two principal objectives of
the Sandiganbayan proceedings.—The Commission satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected killers to be
pinpointed the crucial factual issue thus: “the more significant charged in court and of giving them through their acquittal
inquiry is on whether the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the the legal shield of double jeopardy. Indeed, the secret
Tanodbayan actually succumbed to such pressure, as may be Malacañang conference at which the authoritarian President
gauged by their subsequent actuations in their called together the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan
_______________ and Tanodbayan Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel
headed by Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera and told them how to
**** The motion for intervention of 25 accused generals and military

men and one civilian was granted in the Court’s Resolution of November 24,
handle and rig (moro-moro) the trial and the close monitoring
1985. Petitioners in their Manifestation of November 22, 1985 likewise of the entire proceedings to assure the pre-determined
impleaded the said 26 accused as private respondents. ignominious final outcome are without parallel and
45 precedent in our annals and jurisprudence. To borrow a
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 45 phrase from Ninoy’s April 14, 1975 letter withdrawing his
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan petition for habeas corpus, “This is the evil of one-man rule at
respective handling of the case.” It duly concluded that its very worst.” Our Penal Code penalizes “any executive
“the pressure exerted by President Marcos in the conference officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any
held on January 10, 1985 pervaded the entire proceedings of judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming
the Aquino-Galman [murder] cases” as manifested in several within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice.” His
specific incidents and instances it enumerated in the Report obsession for “the boys” acquittal led to several firsts which
under the heading of “Manifestations of Pressure and would otherwise be inexplicable.
Manipulation.” Same; Same; Same; Attendance on Jan. 10, 1985 by both
Same; Same; Same; Same.—The record shows the Tanodbayan and the Presiding Justice of the
suffocatingly that from beginning to end, the then President Sandiganbayan at a Malacañang conference called by an
used, or more precisely, misused the overwhelming resources authoritarian President to discuss the Aquino-Galman murder
cases even before the cases were filed in court cast illegality to over criminal offenses committed by military men) made it
the entire trial from the very possible to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be an
46 impartial court, which is the very essence of due process of law.
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED As the writer then wrote, “jurisdiction over cases should be
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan determined by law, and not by preselection of the Executive,
beginning.—The fact of the secret Malacañang which could be much too easily transformed into a means
conference of January 10, 1985 at which the authoritarian of predetermining the outcome of individual cases.” This
President discussed with the Presiding Justice of the criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the
Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter cases by public respondents at the secret Malacañang
of the imminent filing of the criminal charges against all the conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice
twenty-six accused (as admitted by respondent Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent
Fernandez to have been confirmed by him to the then Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. This renders
President’s “Coordinator” Manuel Lazaro on the preceding moot and irrelevant for now the extensive arguments of
day) is not denied. It is without precedent. This was illegal respondents accused, particularly Generals Ver and Olivas
under our penal laws, supra. This illegality vitiated from the and those categorized as accessories, that there has been no
very beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganabayan court evidence or witness suppressed against them, that the
headed by the very Presiding Justice who attended. As the erroneous conclusions of Olivas as police investigator do not
Commission noted: “The very acts of being summoned to make him an ac-
47
Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the
circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 47
dramatized and exemplified. x x x Verily, it can be said that Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential cessory of the crimes he investigated and the appraisal
pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped and evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses presented
inside Malacañang Palace on January 10, 1985.” and suppressed. There will be time and opportunity to present
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; No court whose all these arguments and considerations at the remand and
Presiding Justice received “orders or suggestions” from a retrial of the cases herein ordered before a neutral and
President whose decree made it possible to refer a case to his impartial court.
court can be on impartial court.—No court whose Presiding Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Double
Justice has received “orders or suggestions” from the very Jeopardy does not attach where a criminal trial was a sham.—
President who by an amendatory decree (disclosed only at the More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy
hearing of oral arguments on November 8, 1984 on a petition hold in the cases at bar where as we have held, the sham trial
challenging the referral of the Aquino-Galman murder cases was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president
to the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan instead of to a court ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig
martial, as mandatorily required by the known P.D. 1850 at the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to
the time providing for exclusive jurisdiction of courts martial assure the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total
absolution as innocent of all the respondents-accused. 48
Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera which 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
saw him near the end “deactivating” himself from the case, as Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
it was his belief that its eventual resolution was already a thing which can be treated as an outlaw.” It is a terrible
foregone conclusion, they could not cope with the misuse and and unspeakable affront to the society and the people.
abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian Same; Same; Same; Same; Injunction; The
President to weaken the case of the prosecution, to suppress Sandiganbayan should not have rendered a decision on the
it’s evidence, harass, intimidate and threaten its witnesses, case while there was a pending motion for reconsideration in
secure their recantation or prevent them from testifying. the Supreme Court for inhibition although there was no longer
Fully aware of the prosecution’s difficulties in locating a restraining order against that court.—In this case,
witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal
appear and testify, respondent Sandiganbayan maintained a of their petition and lifting of the temporary restraining order
“dizzying tempo” of the proceedings and announced its enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had
intention to terminate the proceedings in about 6 months time been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the
or less than a year, pursuant to the scripted scenario. The respondents,’ including the Sandiganbayan’s, comments.
prosecution complained of “the Presiding Justice’s seemingly Although no restraining order was issued anew, respondent
hostile attitude towards (it)” and their being the subject of Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its
warnings, reprimand and contempt proceedings as compared decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final
to the nil situation for the defense. Herrera likewise action of this Court. This is the teaching of Valdez vs.
complained of being “cajoled into producing witnesses and Aquilizan,wherein the Court in setting aside the hasty
pressed on making assurances that if given a certain period, convictions, ruled that “prudence dictated that (respondent
they will be able to produce their witnesses.” Herrera pleaded judge) refrain from deciding the cases or at the very least to
for “a reasonable period of preparation of its evidence” and hold in abeyance the promulgation of his decision pending
cited other pending cases before respondent court that were action by this Court. But prudence gave way to imprudence;
pending trial for a much longer time where the “dizzying the respondent judge acted precipitately by deciding the cases
tempo” and “fast pace” were not maintained by the court [hastily without awaiting this Court’s action]. All of the acts
Manifestly, the prosecution and the sovereign people were of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on
denied due process of law with a partial court and biased his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively
Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring: prejudiced the petitioner.”
and pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to assure Courts; Judgments; The lower courts draw their hearings
the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, coerced and from the Supreme Court.—Now that the light is emerging, the
scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is Supreme Court faces the task of restoring public faith and
a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at confidence in the courts. The Supreme Court enjoys neither
all. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is “a the power of the sword nor of the purse. Its strength lies
lawless mainly in public confidence, based on the truth and moral
force of its judgments. This has been built on its cherished and the sovereign people in accordance with his sacred oath of
traditions of objectivity and impartiality, integrity and office. To paraphrase the late Chief Justice Earl Warren of the
fairness and unswerving loyalty to the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court, the Justices and Judges must
rule of law which compels acceptance as well by the leadership ever realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority
as by the people. The lower courts draw their bearings from nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it
the Supreme Court. With this Court’s judgment today in accordance with their oath of office, guided only by the
declaring the nullity of the questioned judgment of acquittal Constitution and their own conscience and honor.
and directing a new trial, there must be a rejection of the
temptation of becoming instruments of injustice as vigorously MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:
as we rejected becoming its victims. The end of one form of
injustice should not become simply the beginning of another. Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Due Process; Double
This simply means that the respondents-accused must now Jeopardy;The suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution
face trial for the crimes charged against them before an and the San-diganbayan’s showing of partiality from
impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due beginning to end have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.—
process. What the past regime had There is reason to believe that some vital evidence had been
49 suppressed by the prosecution, or that it had disregarded, as
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 49 immaterial or irrelevant, evidence which, if presented, could
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan affect the outcome of the case. As it is, the prosecution failed
denied the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham to fully ventilate its position and to lay out before respondent
trial must now be assured as much to the accused as to the Court all the pertinent facts which could have helped that
aggrieved parties. The people will assuredly have a way of Court in arriving at a just decision. It had, thus, failed in its
knowing when justice has prevailed as well as when it has task.
failed. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same.—Respondent Court, in
Same; Public Officers; Judges; Loyalty of those in the showing partiality for the accused from beginning to end, from
public service must be to the Constitution and the people.—The the raffle of the subject cases to the promulgation of judgment,
notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed which absolved the accused, en masse, from any and all
to public office owe their primary allegiance to the appointing liability, is equally culpable for miscarriage of justice. Due
authority and are accountable to him alone and not to the process of law, which “requires a hearing before an impartial
people or the Constitution must be discarded. The function of and disinterested tribunal” and the right of every litigant to
the appointing authority with the mandate of the people, “nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impar-
50
under our system of government, is to fill the public posts.
While the appointee may acknowledge with gratitude the 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
opportunity thus given of rendering public service, the Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
appointing authority becomes functus officio and the primary tial Judge” (Gutierrez vs. Santos, 112 Phil. 184 [1961];
loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the Constitution Castillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 124 [1975]), was violated.
 Same; Same; Same; Same; There can be no double are evidently of historical importance, I am readily persuaded
jeopardy where both prosecutor and judge acted fraudulently that it is to our national interest that all relevant evidence
even when there is no evidence that an accused had anything that may be now available be provided an opportunity to be
to do thereon.—It is true that where an accused was not a received and made known so that whatever is the actual truth
party to the fraud, a conviction secured fraudulently by the can be rightfully ascertained.
State’s officer cannot be avoided by the state (State vs. Heflin,
96 So. 459, 19 Ala. App. 222). However, that exception is GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring:
inapplicable to the cases at bar where both the prosecution
and the Trial Court itself were parties to the fraud and Criminal Procedure; Evidence; The evidence before the
collusion. Nor can it be said that the accused were not a part Vasquez Commission have confirmed my initial misgivings on
thereof. The agreement to file the murder charge in Court so regular perfor-
that, after being acquitted as planned, the accused could no 51
longer be prosecuted under the doctrine of double jeopardy; VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 51
the “categorization” of the accused into principals, accomplices Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
and accessories so that not all of them would be denied bail mance of official duty by the Sandiganbayan.—What
during the trial, were fraudulently conceived for their benefit were some of these misgivings now given substance by the
and for the purpose of protecting them from subsequent investigation? Mistrial is usually raised by the accused. In
prosecution. It is, thus, no bar to a subsequent prosecution for this petition neither the accused nor the prosecution saw
the same offense (Coumas vs. Superior Court, 192 P. 2d. 449, anything wrong in the proceedings. We had the unusual
452, 31 C. 2d. 682). “A verdict of acquittal procured by the phenomenon of the relatives of one victim, prominent lawyers
accused by fraud and collusion is a nullity and does not put and law professors, and retired Justices assuming the
him in jeopardy; and consequently, it is no bar to a second trial uncommon role of alleging not only a biased Sandiganbayan
for the same offense (State vs. Lee, 30A. 1110, 65 Conn. 265, but also a Tanodbayan holding back its own evidence, Instead
48 Am. S.R. 202, 27 L. RA. 498). of allowing the heated passions and emotions generated by the
Aquino assassination to cool off or die down, the accused
ALAMPAY, J., concurring: insisted on the immediate rendition of a decision.
Same; Same; Same.—The Sandiganbayan is usually
Criminal Procedure; The ends of justice will be best served sober and respectful in its relations with the Supreme Court.
by allowing a trial anew of these cases in view of significant I, therefore, found it strange and unfortunate why, in its
discoveries made by the court-appointed Commission.—In my Comment, the Sandiganbayan should question our authority
considered view, the ends of Justice will be best served by to look into the exercise of its jurisdiction. There was the
allowing the trial anew of the subject cases in order to further matter of television cameras during trial, their effect
ultimately obtain a judgment that will be removed from any on the witnesses and the judges, and other mischievous
suspicion of attendant irregularities. With the greatest potentialities. The report of the Vasquez Commission now
significance being given by our people to the said cases, which shows that there was more to these misgivings and suspicions
than appeared in the records at that time. The Court’s opinion innocence or guilt of the accused should be neither a
penned by the Chief Justice states in detail why the prosecutor or judge in any forthcoming trial. It is not enough
Sandiganbayan was not an impartial tribunal and the for the future proceedings to be fair; they should be above any
Tanodbayan not an unbiased prosecutor. suspicion of partiality, bias, rancor, or vindictiveness. It would
Same; Double Jeopardy; A “moro-moro” trial could not be unfortunate if, in the conduct of further proceedings in this
result in a just and valid decision.—Under the circumstances case, erroneous impressions may arise that a prosecutor or
found by the Vasquez Commission, there was a failure of trial judge has prejudged the guilt or innocence of any accused.
tantamount to no trial at all. A “moro-moro” could not possibly Having just declared a mistrial, we should not again declare
result in a just or valid decision. the retrial as another mistrial, ad infinitum.
Same; Appeal; Courts; Evidence; The opinion expressed
by this Court should not be taken as a factual-finding of this PETITION to review the decision of the
Court on the merits of the Aquino-Galman murder cases.—In Sandiganbayan.
the same way that we deplore the pressures and partiality
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
which led to the judgment of acquittal, we must insure that
absolutely no indication of bias, pre-judgment, or Lupino Lazaro and Arturo M. de Castro for
vindictiveness shall taint the retrial of this case. The fairly
petitioners.
strong language used by the Court in its main opinion Antonio R. Coronel for respondents Gen. Ver and
underscores the gravity with which it views the travesties of
Col. Tigas, Jr.
justice in this “trial of the century.” At the same time, nothing
Rodolfo U. Jimenez for respondent Brig. Gen.
expressed in our opinion should be interpreted as the
Custodio.
Supreme Court’s making a factual finding, one way or another,
Ramon M. Bernaldo for respondent H. Gosuico.
about the perpetrators of the Aquino or the Galman killing.
Romulo Quimbo for respondent B. Vera Cruz.
Any statements about the circumstances of the assassination
or about the military version of the Norberto J. Quisumbing for respondent P. Olivas.
52 Felix Solomon for respondent Col. A. Custodio.
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Alfonso S. Cruz for B. Fernandez.
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan Edgardo B. Gayos for M. Pamaran.
killings are intended solely for one issue—whether or not
the Sandiganbayan acquittals should be set aside and a retrial RESOLUTION
ordered.
Same; Courts; Judgments; Those who in the past may TEEHANKEE, C.J.:
have expressed an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of
the accused in those cases should be neither prosecutor or judge Last August 21st, our nation marked with solemnity and
in the forthcoming trial.—Needless to say, any person who, in for the first time in freedom the third anniversary of the
the past, may have formally expressed opinions about the treacherous assassination of foremost opposition leader
former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. imprisoned But the then President never filed the said charges
for almost eight years since the imposition of martial law against Ninoy in the civil courts.
in September, Ninoy Aquino was nevertheless thereafter allowed in
53 May, 1980 to leave the country to undergo successful
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 53 heart surgery. After three years of exile and despite the
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan regime’s refusal to give him a passport, he sought to
1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was return home “to strive for a genuine national
sentenced to death by firing squad by a military tribunal reconciliation founded on justice.” He was to be cold-
for common offenses alleged to have been committed long bloodedly killed while under escort away by soldiers
before the declaration of martial law and whose _______________
jurisdiction over him as a civilian entitled to trial by
See Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, et al., 63 SCRA 546
1

judicial process by civil courts he repudiated. Ninoy (May 9, 1975). Ninoy Aquino’s motion of April 14, 1975 to withdraw his
pleaded in vain that the military tribunals are petition challenging the jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians
admittedly not courts but mere instruments and subject with his letter stating, inter alia, his reasons for continuing the hunger
strike “(he) began ten days ago,” that “(he) felt that the case (he) had
to the control of the President as created by him under filed since 1973 in the Supreme Court had become meaningless;” that
the General Orders issued by him as Commander-in- he has decided to “place (his) fate and (his) life squarely in the hands
Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and that he of . . . Mr. Marcos” was denied by a seven-to-three vote.
had already been publicly indicted and adjudged guilty 54
by the President of the charges in a nationwide press 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
conference held on August 24, 1971 when he declared the Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
evidence against Ninoy “not only strong but from his plane that had just landed at the Manila
overwhelming.” This followed the Plaza Miranda
1 International Airport on that fateful day at past 1 p.m.
bombing of August 21, 1971 of the proclamation rally of His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into
the opposition Liberal Party candidates for the the back of his head by a murderous assassin,
November, 1971 elections (when eight persons, were notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by airtight
killed and practically all of the opposition candidates security of close to 2,000 soldiers—and “from a military
headed by Senator Jovito Salonga and many more were viewpoint, it (was) technically impossible to get inside
seriously injured), and the suspension of the privilege of (such) a cordon.” The military investigators reported
2

the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 889 on within a span of three hours that the man who shot
August 23, 1971. The massacre was instantly attributed Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be
to the communists but the truth has never been known. unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando
Galman, although he was the personal friend of accused
Col. Arturo Custodio who picked him up from his house 3 P.D. 1886 dated October 14, 1983 and Amendatory P.D. 1903 dated
February 8, 1984.
on August 17, 1983) was a communist-hired gunman, 4 As was a matter of public knowledge, the local media were

and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. 55

The military later filmed a re-enactment of the killing VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 55
scripted according to this version and continuously Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
replayed it on all TV channels as if it were taken live on thinking and honest men desire to ventilate the truth
the spot. The then President instantly accepted the through fare, independent and dispassionate
military version and repeated it in a nationally televised investigation by prestigious and free investigators.”
press conference that he gave late in the evening of After two false starts, he finally constituted the
5

August 22, 1983, wherein he said, in order to induce Board on October 22, 1983 which held 125 hearing days
6

disbelief that the military had a hand in the killing, that commencing November 3, 1983 (including 3 hearings in
“if the purpose was to eliminate Aquino, this was not the Tokyo and 8 hearings in Los Angeles, California) and
way to do it.” heard the testimonies of 194 witnesses recorded in
The national tragedy shocked the conscience of the 20,377 pages of transcripts, until the submission of their
entire nation and outraged the free world. The large minority and majority reports to the President on
masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of October 23 and 24, 1984. This was to mark another first
national mourning and came out in millions in the anywhere in the world wherein the minority report was
largest and most orderly public turnout for Ninoy’s submitted one day ahead by the ponente thereof, the
funeral reflected their grief for his martyrdom and their chairman, who was received congenially and cordially by
yearning for the truth, justice and freedom. the then President who treated the report as if it were
The then President was constrained to create a Fact the majority report instead of a minority report of one
Finding Board to investigate “the treacherous and
3
_______________
vicious assassination of former Senator Benigno S.
Aquino, Jr. on August 21, 1983 [which] has to all subject to very tight rein by the regime. There was the ironic case of
Rommel Corro, publisher-editor of the Philippine Times. His paper was
Filipinos become a national tragedy and national shame raided, padlocked and closed down by heavily armed soldiers on
specially because of the early distortions and September 29, 1983, after he had published therein reprints of wire
exaggerations in both foreign and local media so that all
4 stories on Ninoy Aquino’s assassination, viz. that his assassination was
right the product of a military conspiracy, On October 1, 1983, Corro himself
_______________ was detained under a Preventive Detention Order issued by the then
President and he was thereafter charged in court with inciting to
2 Col. G. Honasan, Time issue of March 10, 1986; Minister Enrile,
sedition with no bail recommended. He was reporting only what people
Newsweek issue of March 3, 1986. here and abroad had been thinking and talking about the Aquino
assassination. The President’s Fact Finding Board’s official report later
bore out and affirmed what Corro had published the year before that Sen. Aquino could have shot him;” that Galman, the
Aquino’s assassination-murder was due to a military conspiracy. So on
November 8, 1984, upon a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court
military’s “fall guy” was “not the assassin of Sen. Aquino”
ordered his release on recognizance of his own lawyers. The then and that “the SWAT troopers who gunned down Galman
President lifted the PDA. But Corro never got back his newspaper until and the soldiers who escorted Sen. Aquino down the
after the then President was deposed, overthrown and fled the country service stairs, deliberately and in conspiracy with one
in February, 1986.
5 The first Board headed by then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando
another, gave a perjured story to us regarding the
and composed of four retired Supreme Court Justices resigned, after its alleged shooting by Galman of Sen. Aquino and the
composition was challenged in an action filed in the Supreme Court. mowing down, in turn, of Galman himself;” in short, that
Thereafter, former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino declined appointment Ninoy’s assassination was the product of a military
as board chairman.
6 Composed of retired Court of Appeals Justice Corazon J. Agrava,
conspiracy, not a communist plot. The only difference
chairman, and lawyer Luciano E. Salazar, businessman Dante G. between the two reports is that the majority report found
Santos, labor leader Ernesto F. Herrera and educator Amado C. Dizon, all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in
members. the title of the case headed by then AFP Chief General
56
Fabian C. Ver involved in the military conspiracy and
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
therefore “indictable for the premeditated killing of
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman at
and forthwith referred it to respondent Tanodbayan “for the MIA on August 21, 1983:” while the chairman’s
final resolution through the legal system” and for trial in minority report would exclude nineteen of them and limit
the Sandiganbayan which was better known as a graft as plotters “the six persons who were on the service stairs
court; and the majority report of the four other members while Senator Aquino was descending” and “General
was submitted on the following day to the then President Luther Custodio . . . because the criminal plot could not
who coldly received them and could scarcely conceal his have been planned and implemented without his
instant rejection of their report with the grim statement intervention.”
that “I hope you can live with your conscience with what The chairman wrote in her minority report (somewhat
you have done.” prophetically) that “The epilogue to our work lies in what
The fact is that both majority and minority reports will transpire in accordance with the action that the
were one in rejecting the military version as propounded Office of the President may thereafter direct to be taken.”
by the chief investigator, respondent Gen. Olivas, that The four-member
Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired assassin, stating 57
that “the evidence shows [to the contrary] that Rolando VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 57
Galman had no subversive affiliations.” They were in Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
agreement that “only the soldiers in the staircase with
majority report (also prophetically) wrote in the epilogue trusted not to go beyond its proper limits.’ Social apathy,
(after warning the forces who adhere to an alien and passivity and indifference and neglect have spawned in secret
intolerable political ideology against unscrupulously a dark force that is bent on destroying the values held sacred
using the report “to discredit our traditionally revered by freedom-loving people.
“To assert our proper place in the civilized world, it is
institutions”), that “the tragedy opened our eyes and for
imperative that public officials should regard public service as
the first time confirmed our worst fears of what
a reflection of human ideals in which the highest sense of
unchecked evil would be capable of doing.” They wrote: moral values and integrity are strictly required.
“The task of the Board was clear and unequivocal. This task “A tragedy like that which happened on August 21, 1983,
was not only to determine the facts and circumstances and the crisis that followed, would have normally caused the
surrounding the death of the late former Senator. Of greater resignation
significance is the awesome responsibility of the Board to 58
uphold righteousness over evil, justice over injustice, 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
rationality over irrationality, humaneness over inhumanity.
The task was indeed a painful test, the inevitable result of
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
which will restore our country’s honored place among the of the Chief of the Armed Forces in a country where public
sovereign nations of the free world where peace, law and order, office is viewed with highest esteem and respect and where
freedom, and justice are a way of life. the moral responsibilities of public officials transcend all other
“More than any other event in contemporary Philippine considerations.”
history, the killing of the late former Senator Aquino has It is equally the fact that the then President through all
brought into sharper focus, the ills pervading Philippine his recorded public acts and statements from the
society. It was the concretization of the horror that has been beginning disdained and rejected his own Board’s above
haunting this country for decades, routinely manifested by the findings and insisted on the military version of Galman
breakdown of peace and order, economic instability, being Ninoy’s assassin. In upholding this view that
subversion, graft and corruption, and an increasing number of “there is no involvement of anyone in his government in
abusive elements in what are otherwise noble institutions in the assassination,” he told David Briscoe (then AP
our country—the military and law enforcement agencies. We Manila Bureau Chief) in a Radio-TV interview on
are, however, convinced that, by and large, the great majority September 9, 1983 that “I am convinced that if any
of the officers and men of these institutions have remained
member of my government were involved, I would have
decent and honorable, dedicated to their noble mission in the
service of our country and people.
known somehow. x x x Even at a fairly low level, I would
“The tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time have known. I know how they think. I know what they
confirmed our worst fears of what unchecked evil would be are thinking of.” He told CBS in another interview in
7

capable of doing. As former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba May, 1984 (as his Fact Finding Board was holding its
Eban observes. ‘Nobody who has great authority can be hearings) the following:
“CBS: ‘But indeed there has been recent evidence that seems probably be shown, those witnesses (against the accused)
to contradict earlier reports, namely, the recent evidence are perjured witnesses.”10

seems to indicate that some of the guards may have been It was against this setting that on November 11, 1985
responsible (for shooting Ninoy).” petitioners Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman,
“MARCOS: ‘Well, you are of course wrong. What you have
mother and son, respectively, of the late Rolando Galman,
been reading are the newspapers and the newspaper reports
and twenty-nine (29) other petitioners, composed of three
have been biased. The evidence still proves that Galman was
the killer. The evidence also shows that there were former Justices of this Court, five incumbent and former
intelligence reports connecting the communist party to the university presidents, a former AFP Chief of Staff,
killing.’ ”
8 outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid
In his reply of October 25, 1984 to General Ver’s letter of citizens of the community, filed the present action
the same date going on leave of absence upon release of alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and
the Board’s majority report implicating him, he wrote Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities
that “(W)e are even more aware, general, that the constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of
circumstances under which the board has chosen to justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of
implicate you in its findings are fraught with doubt and the petitioners and the sovereign people of the
great contradictions of opinion and testimony. And we Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that the
are deeply disturbed that on the basis of socalled Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people
evidence, you have been so accused by some members of when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to
the Board.” and extended “My very best wishes to you present vital and important testimonial and
and documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the
_______________ Sandiganbayan Justices were biased, prejudiced and
partial in favor of the accused, and that their acts
Mr. & Ms. special edition of Oct. 26-Nov. 1, 1984, p. 11.
“clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of
7

8 Idem, p. 12.
59 government to find out the truth about the Aquino
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 59 assassination.” Petitioners prayed for the immediate
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining the
your family for a speedy resolution of your case.” even as
9
respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision on
he announced that he would return the general to his the merits in the pending criminal cases which it had
position as AFP Chief “if he is acquitted by the scheduled on November 20, 1985 and that judgment be
Sandiganbayan.” In an interview on June 4, 1985 with rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the
the Gamma Photo Agency, as respondent court was proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-
hearing the cases, he was quoted as saying that “as will
trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased 11 As per the Court’s Resolution of November 18, 1985, Senior
Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee and Associate Justices Vicente
prosecutor. 10-a
Abad Santos, Efren I. Plana, Venicio Escolin, Hugo Gutierrez, Jr.,
_______________
Buenaventura de la Fuente, Serafin Cuevas, Nestor Alampay and Lino
Patajo voted to issue the restraining order, and Makasiar, C.J. and
9Times-Journal issue of October 25, 1984.
Ramon C. Aquino, J. reiterated their votes to dismiss the petition.
10Record, Vol I, pp. 24-25.
Concepcion, Jr. and Melencio-Herrera, JJ. were absent and Relova, J.
10-a The Court per its Resolution of Nov. 14, 1985 required
was on leave.
respondents’ comment on the petition by Nov. 18, 1985 and set the plea 12 As per the Court’s Resolution of November 28, 1985, Chief Justice

for restraining order for hearing at 3:00 p.m. of the same day.
Ramon C. Aquino and Associate Justices Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr.,
60 Efren I. Plana, Venicio Escolin, Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., Buenaventura de
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED la Fuente, Serafin R. Cuevas, Nestor Alampay and Lino Patajo so voted
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan to dismiss the petition. Teehankee and Abad Santos, JJ. filed separate
dissenting opinions. Gutierrez, Jr., J. filed a concurring and dissenting
At the hearing on November 18, 1985 of petitioners’ opinion. Melencio-Herrera and Relova, JJ. were on leave.
prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order Teehankee, J. stated in his dissent and vote for granting petitioners
enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the requested 5-day period and to set the case for hearing on the merits:
the two criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by “I fail to see the need of rushing the release of the majority resolution of
dismissal considering that it was made quite clear at
nine-to-two votes to issue the restraining order prayed
11
61
for. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 61
to file a reply to respondents’ separate comments and Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a
the petition and to lift the temporary restraining order
copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution as
issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan
filed in the Sandiganbayan, the signature page of
from rendering its decision. The same Court majority
13

which alone had been submitted to the Court as Annex 5

denied petitioners’ motion for a new 5-day period counted
of his comment.
from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan’s memorandum
But ten days later on November 28, 1985, the Court
for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on
by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse, resolved 12

them and which they alleged was “very material to the

to dismiss
_______________
question of his partiality, bias and prejudice” within
which to file a consolidated reply thereto and to
Ramon C. Aquino, J., joined by Felix V. Makasiar, C.J., voted to respondents’ separate comments, by an eight-to-three
dismiss outright the petition on the grounds that “The Sandiganbayan vote, with Justice Gutierrez joining the dissenters. 14

and Tanodbayan acted within their jurisdiction in trying the case,” _______________
“petitioners are neither public prosecutors nor the accused” and have no
cause for action, concluding that the “petition is novel and the hearing on the petition for issuance of a temporary restraining
unprecedented for the single reason that it is devoid of any legal basis.” order on November 18, 1985 that the merits of the petition would be
heard by the Court after the parties had opportunity to file their proven, the petitioners would be entitled to the reliefs
pleadings such as an amended petition to implead the accused as well
as the People as parties respondents, besides giving the petitioners an
demanded: The People are entitled to due process which
opportunity to reply to the comments filed by the original respondents requires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan.” He added that the petition deserved prosecutor. If the State is deprived of a fair opportunity
a full-dress hearing on the merits; that the personality of the offended to prosecute and convict because certain material
party such as Saturnina D. Galman in disqualification cases to file the
action independently of the prosecution to stop the rendition of a
evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and the
possible judgment of acquittal by a biased court which would leave the tribunal is not impartial, then the entire proceedings
offended party without any remedy nor appeal in view of the double would be null and void. Petitioners prayed that the
jeopardy rule has long been recognized, since the 1969 case of Paredes Sandiganbayan be restrained from promulgating their
vs. Gopengco, 29 SCRA 688, not to mention the overrriding and
transcending public interest. decision as scheduled anew on December 2, 1985.
Abad Santos, J., in dissenting and voting that “The minimum On December 5, 1985, the Court required the
treatment which the petition deserves is a full-dress hearing on the respondents to comment on the motion for
merits,” prefaced same with the statement that “I never had any illusion reconsideration but issued no restraining order. Thus, on
concerning the ultimate fate of the instant petition, but the precipitate
dismissal truly amazes me.” December 2, 1985, as scheduled, respondent
13 Escolin, J. was absent. Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the
14 Gutierrez, Jr., J., citing the momentous issues of due process and
accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent
grave averments of miscarriage of justice, cast a dissenting vote against
and totally absolving them of any civil liability. This
the majority resolution to deny petitioners the brief 5-day extension to
file a reply and to “immediately dismiss or deny the petition” (italics marked another unusual first in that respondent
copied), stating that petitioners “should be given every reasonable Sandiganbayan in effect convicted the very victim
opportunity to show the merit of their petition. He “personally found it Rolando Galman (who was not on trial) as the assassin
intriguing for the accused in a sensational double murder case involving
the rallying figure of the political opposition to strongly insist on an
of Ninoy contrary to the very information and evidence
immediate decision.” He expressed “disturbance why the ‘trial of the submitted by the prosecution. In opposition, respondents
century where all the accused, except for submitted that with the Sandiganbayan’s verdict of
62 acquittal, the instant case had become moot and
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED academic. On February 4, 1986, the same Court majority
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of
On November 29, 1985, petitioners filed a motion for merit, with the writer and Justice Abad Santos
reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal did not maintaining our dissent.
indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that On March 20, 1986, petitioners filed their motion to
the case be set for a full hearing on the merits because if admit their second motion for reconsideration attached
the charge of partiality and bias against the respondents therewith. The thrust of the second motion for
and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution are reconsideration was the
_______________ and prosecution of the two (2) murder cases below
against herein private-party respondents.” He candidly
one civilian, are military officials and where witnesses are
understandably reluctant to come forward,’ should have been televised admitted also in his memorandum: “There is not much
at all.” But he concurred in the results of the majority resolution of that need be said about the existence of pressure. That
immediate dismissal of the petition on “the presumption that judicial there were pressures can hardly be denied; in fact, it has
acts were regularly performed and that public officers have discharged
their duties in accordance with law.”
never been denied.” He submitted that “even as he
15-a

63 vehemently denies insinuations of any direct or indirect

VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 63 complicity or participation in any alleged attempt to
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan supposedly whitewash the cases below, . . . should this
startling and theretofore unknown revelations of Deputy Honorable Court find sufficient cause to justify the
Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as reported in the March 6, reopening and retrial of the cases below, he would
1986 issue of the Manila Times entitled “Aquino Trial a welcome such development so that any wrong that had
Sham,” that the then President had ordered the been caused may be righted and so that, at the very least
respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Bernardo the actuations of herein respondent in
_______________
Fernandez and the prosecution panel headed by Herrera
to whitewash the criminal cases against the 26 15 The Court, then composed of ten members, Teehankee, C.J. and
respondents accused and produce a verdict of acquittal. Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cuevas, Alampay and Patajo, JJ. voted unanimously.
On April 3, 1986, the Court granted the motion to 15-a Vol III, Record, p. 703.
admit the second motion for reconsideration and ordered 64
the respondents to comment thereon. 15
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Respondent Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez stated Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
in his Manifestation filed on April 11, 1986 that he had the premises may be reviewed and reexamined,
ceased to hold office as Tanodbayan as of April 8, 1986 confident as he is that the end will show that he had done
when he was replaced by the new Tanodbayan, Raul M. nothing in the premises that violated his trust as
Gonzales, but reiterating his position in his comment on Tanodbayan (Ombudsman).” New Tanodbayan Raul M.
the petition, he added “relative to the reported alleged Gonzales in his comment of April 14, 1986 “interposed no
revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, objection to the reopening of the trial of the cases . . . as,
herein respondent never succumbed to any alleged in fact, he urged that the said cases be reopened in order
attempts to influence his actuations in the that justice could take its course.”
premises, having instead successfully resisted perceived Respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan First
attempts to exert pressure to drop the case after Division in their collective comment of April 9, 1986
preliminary investigation and actually ordered the filing
stated that the trial of the criminal cases by them was resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel (composed of
valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence the undersigned, Fiscals Ernesto Bernabe and Leonar-
presented and the law applicable, but manifested that “if 65

it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 65
Tanodbayan, Chief of the Prosecution Panel were Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
pressured into suppressing vital evidence which would do Tamayo) for signature. This, of course, was resisted by the
probably alter the result of the trial, Answering panel, and a resolution charging all the respondents as
principals was forwarded to the Tanodbayan on January 10,
Respondents would not interpose any objection to the
1985.
reopening of those cases, if only to allow justice to take
its course.” Respondent Sandiganbayan Justice 1. 2.MALACAÑANG CONFERENCE PLANNED
Bienvenido C. Vera Cruz, in a separate comment, SCENARIO OF TRIAL
asserted that he passed no note to anyone; the note being
bandied about is not in his handwriting; he had nothing At 6:00 p.m. of said date (January 10) Mr. Ferdinand E.
to do with the writing of the note or of any note of any Marcos (the former President) summoned to Malacañang
kind intended for any lawyer of the defense or even of the Justice Bernardo Fernandez (the Tanodbayan),
prosecution; and requested for an investigation by this Sandiganbayan Justice Manuel Pamaran (the Presiding
Court to settle the note-passing issue once and for all. Justice) and all the members of the Panel.
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment Also present at the meeting were Justice Manuel Lazaro
of April 14, 1986 affirmed the allegations in the second (the Coordinator) and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, who left earlier,
came back and left again. The former President had a copy of
motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the
the panel’s signed resolution (charging all accused as
Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors
principals), evidently furnished him in advance, and with
were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino- prepared notes on the contents thereof.
Galman murder case. He amplified his revelations, as The former President started by vehemently maintaining
follows: that Galman shot Aquino at the tarmac. Albeit initially the
undersigned argued against the theory, to remain silent was
1. “1.AB INITIO, A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL! the more discreet posture when the former President became
emotional (he was quite sick then).
Incidents during the preliminary investigation showed During a good part of the conference, the former President
ominous signs that the fate of the criminal case on the death talked about Aquino and the communists, lambasting the
of Ex-Senator Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman on Agrava Board, specially the Legal Panel. Shifting to the
August 21, 1983 was dooned to an ignominous end. military he rumbled on such statements as: It will be bloody . . .
Malacañang wanted dismissal—to the extent that a prepared Gen. Ramos, though close to me, is getting ambitious and poor
Johnny does not know what to do’. . . ‘our understanding with
Gen. Ramos is that his stint is only temporary, but he is The parting words of the former President were: ‘Thank
becoming ambitious;’. . . ‘the boys were frantic when they you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate.’
heard that they will be charged in court, and will be detained While still in the palace grounds on the way out, the
at city jail.’ undersigned manifested his desire to the Tanodbayan to
From outright dismissal, the sentiment veered towards a resign from the panel, or even the office. This, as well as other
more pragmatic approach. The former President more or less moves to this effect, had always been refused. Hoping that
conceded that for political and legal reasons all the with sufficient evidence sincerely and efficiently presented by
respondents should be charged in court. Politically, as it will the prosecution, all involves in the trial would be conscience-
become evident that the government was serious in pursuing pricked and realize the futility and injustice of proceeding in
the case towards its logical conclusion, and thereby ease accordance with the script, the undersigned opted to say on.”
public demonstrations; on the other hand, legally, it was Herrera further added details on the “implementation of
perceived that after (not IF) they are acquitted, double the script,” such as the holding of a “make-believe raffle”
jeopardy would inure. The former President ordered then that within 18 minutes of the filing of the Informations with
the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of the Sandiganbayan at noon of January 23, 1985, while
each respondent.
there were no members of the media; the installation of
In the matter of custody of the accused pendente lite the
TV monitors directly beamed to Malacañang; the
Coordinator was ordered to get in touch with Gen. Narciso
Cabrera, Gen. installation of a “war room” occupied by the military;
66 attempts to direct and stifle witnesses for the
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED prosecution; the suppression of the evidence that could
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan be given by U.S. Airforce men about the “scrambling” of
Vicente Eduardo and Director Jolly Bugarin to put on record Ninoy’s plane; the suppression of rebuttal witnesses and
that they had no place in their respective institutions. The the bias and partiality of the Sandiganbayan; its cavalier
existence of PD No. 1950 (giving custody to commanding disregard of his plea that it “should not decide these
officers of members of AFP charged in court) was never cases on the merits without first making a final ruling on
mentioned. the Motion for Inhibition;” and the Presiding Justice’s
It was decided that the presiding justice (First Division) over-kill with the declaration that “the Court finds all
would personally handle the trial, and assurance was made by accused innocent of the crimes charged in the two
him that it would be finished in four to six months, pointing informations, and accordingly, they incur neither
out that, with the recent effectivity of the New Rules on
criminal nor civil liability,” adding that “in the almost
Criminal Procedure, the trial could be expedited.
Towards the end of the two-hour meeting and after the
twenty years that the undersigned has been the pro-
67
script had been tacitly mapped out, the former President
uttered: ‘Magmoro-moro na lang kayo.’
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 67
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
secutor in the sala of the Presiding Justice this is the arguing that assuming that the judgment of acquittal is
only occasion where civil liability is pronounced in a void for any reason, the remedy is a direct action to annul
decision of ac-quittal.” He “associated himself with the the judgment where the burden of proof falls upon the
motion for reconsideration and likewise prayed that the plaintiff to establish by clear, competent and convincing
proceedings in the Sandiganbayan and its decision be evidence the cause of the nullity.
declared null and void.” After petitioners had filed their consolidated reply,
New Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez’ comment of the Court resolved per its resolution of June 5, 1986 to
April 25, 1986 submitted that a declaration of mistrial appoint a three-member commission composed of retired
will depend on the veracity of the evidence supportive of Supreme Court Justice Conrado Vasquez, chairman, and
petitioners’ claim of suppression of evidence and retired Intermediate Appellate Court Justices Milagros
collusion. He submitted that this would require reception German and Eduardo Caguioa as members, to hear and
of evidence by a Court-appointed or designated receive evidence, testimonial and documentary, of the
commissioner or body of commissioners (as was done charges of collusion and pressures
in G.R. No. 71316, Fr. Romano case; and G.R. No. 68
61016, Morales case; and G.R. No. 70054, Banco 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Filipino case); and that if petitioners’ claim were Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
substantiated, a reopening of the double murder case is and relevant matters, upon prior notice to all parties,
proper to avoid a miscarriage of justice since the verdict and to submit their findings to this Court for proper
of acquittal would no longer be a valid basis for a double disposition. The Commission conducted hearings on 19
jeopardy claim. days, starting on June 16, 1986 and ending on July 16,
Respondents-accused opposed the second motion for 1986. On the said last day, respondents announced in
reconsideration and prayed for its denial. Respondent open hearing that they decided to forego the taking of the
Olivas contended that the proper step for the projected deposition of former President Marcos, as his
government was to file a direct action to annul the testimony would be merely, corroborative of the
judgment of acquittal and at a regular trial present its testimonies of respondents Justice Pamaran and
evidence of collusion and pressures. Tanodbayan Fernandez. On July 31, 1986, it submitted
As a whole, all the other respondents raised the issue its extensive 64-page Report wherein it discussed fully
16

of double jeopardy, and invoked that the issues had the evidence received by it and made a recapitulation of
become moot and academic because of the rendition of its findings in capsulized form, as follows:
the Sandiganbayan’s judgment of acquittal of all
respondents-accused on December 2, 1985, with counsels 1. “1.The Office of the Tanodbayan, particularly
for respondents Ver and Tigas, as well as Olivas, further Justice Fernandez and the Special Investigating
 Panel composed of Justice Herrera, Fiscal capital offenses, President Marcos directed that
Bernabe and Special Prosecutor Tamayo, was the several accused be ‘categorized’ so that some
originally of the view that all of the twenty-six of them would
(26) respondents named in the Agrava Board
majority report should all be charged as _______________
principals of the crime of double murder for the 63 pages so numbered with an additional page 19-A.
16

death of Senator Benigno Aquino and Rolando 69

Galman. VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 69
2. 2.When Malacañang learned of the impending Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
filing of the said charge before the
Sandiganbayan, the Special Investigating Panel 1. merely be charged as accomplices and accessories.
having already prepared a draft Resolution 2. 6.In addition to said directive, President Marcos
recommending such course of action, President ordered that the case be handled personally by
Marcos summoned Justice Fernandez, the three Justice Pamaran who should dispose of it in the
members of the Special Investigating Panel, and earliest possible time.
Justice Pamaran to a conference in Malacañang 3. 7.The instructions given in the Malacañang
in the early evening of January 10, 1985. conference were followed to the letter; and
3. 3.In said conference, President Marcos initially compliance therewith manifested itself in several
expressed his disagreement with the specific instances in the course of the proceedings,
recommendation of the Special Investigating such as, the changing of the resolution of the
Panel and disputed the findings of the Agrava special investigating panel, the filing of the case
Board that it was not Galman who shot Benigno with the Sandiganbayan and its assignment to
Aquino. Justice Pamaran, suppression of some vital
4. 4.Later in the conference, however, President evidence, harassment of witnesses, recantation
Marcos was convinced of the advisability of filing of witnesses who gave adverse testimony before
the murder charge in court so that, after being the Agrava Board, coaching of defense counsels,
acquitted as planned, the accused may no longer the hasty trial, monitoring of proceedings, and
be prosecuted in view of the doctrine of double even in the very decision rendered in the case.
jeopardy. 4. 8.That that expression of President Marcos’ desire
5. 5.Presumably in order to be assured that not all of as to how he wanted the Aquino-Galman case to
the accused would be denied bail during the trial, be handled and disposed of constituted sufficient
considering that they would be charged with pressure on those involved in said task to comply
 with the same in the subsequent course of the Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
proceedings. for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos.
5. 9.That while Justice Pamaran and Justice 10010 and 10011 entitled ‘People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,
Fernandez manifested no revulsion against be granted.”
complying with the Malacañang directive, The Court per its Resolution of July 31, 1986 furnished
Justice Herrera played his role with manifestly all the parties with copies of the Report and required
ambivalent feelings. them to submit their objections thereto. It thereafter
6. 10.Sufficient evidence has been ventilated to show heard the parties and their objections at the hearing of
a scripted and predetermined manner of August 26, 1986 and the matter was submitted for the
handling and disposing of the Aquino-Gabnan Court’s resolution.
murder case, as stage-managed from The Court adopts and approves the Report and its
Malacañang and performed by willing dramatis findings and holds on the basis thereof and of the
personnae as well as by recalcitrant ones evidence received and appreciated by the Commission
whipped into line by the omni-present influence and duly supported by the facts of public record and
of an authoritarian ruler.” knowledge set forth above and hereinafter, that the then
President (code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in
The Commission submitted the following and from Malacañang Palace “a scripted and
recommendation. predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the
“Considering the existence of adequate credible evidence Aquino-Galman murder case;” and that “the prosecution
showing that the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who tried
the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the and decided the same acted under the compulsion of
compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity
capacity to resist, and which not only prevented the to resist; and which not only prevented the prosecution
prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences
evidences which it could have otherwise presented, but also
which it could have otherwise presented, but also
predetermined the final outcome of the case, the Commission
is of the considered thinking and belief, subject to the better
predetermined the final outcome of the case” of total
opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court, that the absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all
proceedings in the said case have been vitiated by lack of due criminal and civil liability.
process, and hereby respectfully recommends that the prayer The Court finds that the Commission’s Report
in the petition (incorporated herein by reference) and findings and
70 conclusions are duly substantiated by the evidence and
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED facts of public record. Composed of distinguished
members of proven integrity with a combined total of 141 “The calling of the conference was undoubtedly to
years of experience in the practice of law (55 years) and accomplish this purpose. x x x.
in the prosecutoral and judicial services (86 years in the “President Marcos made no bones to conceal his purpose
trial and appellate courts), experts at sifting the chaff for calling them. From the start, he expressed irritation and
displeasure at the recommendation of the investigating panel
from the grain, the Commission properly appraised the
17

_______________ to charge all of the twenty-six (26) respondents as principals

of the crime of double murder. He insisted that it was Galman
17 Justice Conrado M. Vasquez was admitted to the Bar in 1937. He who shot Senator Aquino, and that the findings of the Agrava
occupied successively the positions of Chief, Legal Research Division, Board were not supported by evidence that could stand in
and Chief, Law Division, of the Department of Justice, before his court. He discussed and argued with Justice Herrera on this
appointment as Judge of the Court of First Instance (1954-1973). He point. Midway in the course of the discussion, mention was
was Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for 5 years (1973-1978)
made that the filing of the charge in court would at least
until his compulsory retirement at age 65 on September 3, 1978. He was
_______________
called back from retirement and appointed Associate
71
Justice of the Supreme Court on May 14, 1982 until his compulsory
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 71 retirement at age 70 on September 3, 1983.
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan Justice Milagros German was admitted to the Bar in 1940. She occupied
the positions of Assistant Fiscal of Manila (1948-1959); Judge, City Court of
evidences presented and denials made by public Manila (1959-1962); Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations (1965-1978)
respondents, thus: and Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (February 15, 1978 until her
“The desire of President Marcos to have the Aquino-Galman compulsory retirement on October 3, 1985).
Justice Eduardo Caguioa was admitted to the Bar in 1940. He was an
case disposed of in a manner suitable to his purposes was
active law practitioner and law professor. He was appointed Judge of the
quite understandable and was but to be expected. The case Court of First Instance on May 12, 1971 until January 16, 1983 when he
had stirred unprecedented public outcry and wide was promoted to the Court of Appeals, until his compulsory retirement on
international attention. Not invariably, the finger of suspicion March 14, 1986.
pointed to those then in power who supposedly had the means 72
and the most compelling motive to eliminate Senator Aquino. 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A day or so after the assassination, President Marcos came up Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
with a public statement aired over television that Senator mollify public demands and possibly prevent further street
Aquino was killed not by his military escorts, but by a demonstrations. It was further pointed out that such a
communist hired gun. It was, therefore, not a source of wonder procedure would be a better arrangement because, if the
that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted, they
manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which, may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and
at the same time, would clear his name and his administration thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses
of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office.
xxx xxx xxx
 “After an agreement was reached as to filing the case, on the part of Justice Fernandez or Justice Pamaran. (No other
instead of dismissing it, but with some of the accusecl to be person present in the conference was presented by the
charged merely as accomplices or accessories, and the respondents. Despite an earlier manifestation by the
question of preventive custody of the accused having thereby respondents of
received satisfactory solution, President Marcos took up the 73
matter of who would try the case and how long it would take VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 73
to be finished. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
“According to Justice Herrera, President Marcos told their intention to present Fiscal Bernabe and Prosecutor
Justice Pamaran ‘point blank’ to personally handle the case. Tamayo, such move was abandoned without any reason
This was denied by Justice Pamaran. No similar denial was having been given therefor.)
voiced by Justice Fernandez in the entire course of his two-day “The facts set forth above are all supported by the evidence
testimony. Justice Pamaran explained that such order could on record. In the mind of the Commission, the only conclusion
not have been given inasmuch as it was not yet certain then that may be drawn therefrom is that pressure from
that the Sandiganbayan would try the case and, besides, cases Malacañang had indeed been made to bear on both the court
therein are assigned by raffle to a division and not to a and the prosecution in the handling and disposition of the
particular Justice thereof. Aquino-Galman case. The intensity of this pressure is readily
“It was preposterous to expect Justice Pamaran to admit deductible from the personality of the one who exerted it, his
having received such presidential directive. His denial, moral and official ascendancy over those to whom his
however, falls to pieces in the light of the fact that the case instructions were directed, the motivation behind such
was indeed handled by him after being assigned to the instructions, and the nature of the government prevailing at
division headed by him. A supposition of mere coincidence is that time which enabled the then head of state to exercise
at once dispelled by the circumstance that he was the only one authoritarian powers. That the conference called to script or
from the Sandiganbayan called to the Malacañang conference stage-manage the prosecution and trial of the Aquino-Galman
wherein the said directive was given. x x x. case was considered as something anomalous that should be
“The giving of such directive to Justice Pamaran may also kept away from the public eye is shown by the effort to assure
be inferred from his admission that he gave President Marcos its secrecy. None but those directly involved were called to
the possible time frame when asked as to how long it would attend. The meeting was held in an inner room of the Palace.
take him to finish the case. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice
“The testimony of Justice Herrera that, during the Lazaro were with the President. The conferees were told
conference, and after an agreement was reached on filing the to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting
case and subsequently acquitting the accused, President was held, presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the
Marcos told them ‘Okay, mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;’ and reception hall waiting to see the President. Actually, no public
that on their way cut of the room President Marcos expressed mention was ever made of this conference until Justice Herrera
his thanks to the group and uttered ‘I know how to made his expose some fifteen (15) months later when the former
reciprocate,’ did not receive any denial or contradiction either President was no longer around.
 “President Marcos undoubtedly realized the importance of subsequent actua-tions in their respective handling of the
the matter he wanted to take up with the officials he asked to case.” It duly concluded that “the pressure exerted by
be summoned. He had to do it personally, and not merely President Marcos in the conference held on January 10,
through trusted assistants. The lack of will or determination 1985 pervaded the entire proceedings of the Aquino-Galman
on the part of Justice Fernandez and Justice Pamaran to [murder] cases” as manifested in several specific incidents and
resist the presidential summons despite their realization of its instances it enumerated in the Report under the heading of
unwholesome implications on their handling of the celebrated “Manifestations of Pressure and Manipulation.”
murder case may be easily inferred from their unquestioned Suffice it to give hereinbelow brief excerpts:—
obedience thereto. No effort to resist was made, despite the 1.The changing of the original Herrera panel draft
existence of a most valid reason to beg off, on the lame excuses Resolution charging all the twenty-six accused as
that they went there out of ‘curiosity,’ or ‘out of respect to the principals by conspiracy by categorizing and charging
Office of the President.’ or that it would be ‘unbecoming to
17 as principals, Generals Ver and Olivas and 6 others
refuse a summons from the President.’ Such frame of mind
as accessories and the civilian as accomplice, and
only reveals their susceptibility to presidential pressure and
lack of capacity to resist the same. The very acts of being recommending bail for the latter two categories: “The
summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence categorization may not be completely justified by
thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in saying that, in the mind of Justice Fernandez, there
themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. Their abject was no sufficient evidence to justify that all of the
deference to President Marcos may likewise be inferred from accused be charged as principals. The majority of the
the admitted fact that, not having been given seats during the Agrava Board found the existence of conspiracy and
two-hour recommended that all of the accused be charged
74 accordingly. Without going into the merit of such
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED finding, it may hardly be disputed that, in case of
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan doubt, and in accordance with the standard practice of
conference (Justice Fernandez said it was not that long, but the prosecution to charge accused with the most
did not say how long) in which President Marcos did the serious possible offense or in the highest category so as
talking most of the time, they listened to him on their feet.
to prevent an incurable injustice in the event that the
Verily, it can be said that any avowal of independent action or
resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the
evidence presented in the trial will show his guilt of
very moment they stepped inside Malacañang Palace on the graver charge, the most logical and practical
January 10, 1985.” 18
course of action should have been, as originally
The Commission pinpointed the crucial factual issue thus: recommended by the Herrera panel, to charge all the
“the more significant inquiry is on whether the accused
Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Tanodbayan actually _______________
succumbed to such pressure, as may be gauged by their
 Commission’s Report, pp. 29-35; italics supplied.
18
unmistakable and persistent efforts were exerted
75
in behalf of the accused to weaken the case of the
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 75 prosecution and thereby assure and justify [the
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan accused’s] eventual scripted acquittal.
Unfavorable evidences were sought to be
1. as principals. As it turned out, Justice Fernandez suppressed, and some were indeed prevented
readily opted for categorization which, not from being ventilated. Adverse witnesses were
surprisingly, was in consonance with the harassed, cajoled, perjured or threatened either
Malacañang instruction.” It is too much to to refrain from testifying or to testify in a manner
attribute to coincidence that such unusual favorable to the defense.”
categorization came only after the then
President’s instruction at Malacañang when Gen. The Report specified the ordeals of the prosecution
Ver’s counsel, Atty. Coronel, had been asking the witnesses: Cesar Loterina, PAL employee, Roberta
21

same of Tanodbayan Fernandez since November, Masibay, Galman’s step-daughter who recanted their
1984; and “Justice Fernandez himself, admit(ted) testimonies before the Fact Finding Board and had to be
that, as of that time, [the Malacañang conference discarded as prosecution witnesses before at the trial.
on January 10, 1985], his own view was in Witnesses Viesca and Rañas who also testified before
conformity with that of the Special Investigating the Board “disappeared all of a sudden and could not be
Panel to charge all of the twenty-six (26) located by the police. The Commission narrated the
respondents as principals of the crime of double efforts to stifle Kiyoshi Wakamiya, eyewitness who
murder.” As the Commission further noted,
19
_______________
“Justice Fernandez never denied the claim of
Commission’s Report, p. 27.
Justice Herrera that the draft resolution of
19

20 Idem, p. 38.
January 10, 1985 (Exhibit ‘B-1’) [charging all 26 21 Idem, pp. 40-43.

accused as principals] was to have been the 76

subject of a press conference on the afternoon of 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
said date which did not go through due to the Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
summons for them to go to Malacañang in the accompanied Ninoy on his fateful flight on August 21,
early evening of said date.” 20
1983 and described them as “palpable, if crude and
2. 2.Suppression of vital evidence and harassment of display(ing) sheer abuse of power.” Wakamiya was not
witnesses: “Realizing, no doubt, that a party’s even allowed to return to Manila on August 20, 1984 to
case is as strong as the evidence it can present, participate in the first death anniversary of Ninoy but
was deported as an undesirable alien and had to leave on sister in the United States to warn her not to testify; that,
the next plane for Tokyo. The Board had to go to Tokyo later, Rudy and William Farinas offered her two million pesos
to hear Wakamiya give his testimony before the supposedly coming from Bongbong Marcos, a house and lot in
Japanese police in accordance with their law and Baguio, the dropping of her estafa case in Hongkong, and the
punishment of the persons responsible for the death of her
Wakamiya claimed before the Commission that the
father, if she would refrain from testifying.
English transcription of his testimony, as prepared by an 77
official of the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, was VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 77
inaccurate and did not correctly reflect the testimony he Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
gave “although there was no clear showing of the “It is a matter of record, however, that despite such cajolery
discrepancy from the original transcription which was in and harassments, or perhaps because of them, Ms. Quijano
Nippon-go. Upon his arrival at the MLA on August 21, eventually testified before the Sandiganbayan. Justice
1985 on invitation of Justice Herrera to testify at the Herrera was told by Justice Fernandez of the displeasure
ongoing trial, “a shot was fired and a soldier was seen expressed by Olympus at Justice Herrera’s going out of his
running away by media men who sought to protect way to make Ms. Quijano to testify, and for his refusal to
Wakamiya from harm by surrounding him.” Wakamiya honor the invitation to attend the birthday party of the First
was forced by immigration officials to leave the country Lady on May 1, 1985, as on the eve of Ms. Quijano’s testimony
by Saturday (August 24th) notwithstanding Herrera’s on May 2, 1985. The insiduous attempts to tamper with her
request to let him stay until he could testify the following testimony, however, did not end with her taking the witness
stand. In the course of her testimony several notes were
Monday (August 26th). In the case of principal
passed to Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez, the defense counsel who
eyewitness Rebecca Quijano, the Commission reported cross-examined her, one of which suggested that she be asked
that more questions about Dean Narvasa who was suspected of
“x x x Undoubtedly in view of the considerable significance of having coached her as to what to declare (Exhibit ‘D’); and on
her proposed testimony and its unfavorable effect on the cause another occasion, at a crucial point in her testimony, a power
of the defense, the efforts exerted to suppress the same was as brownout occurred; which lasted for about twenty minutes,
much as, if not more than those in the case of Wakamiya. x x throwing the courtroom into darkness, and making most of
x She recounted that she was in constant fear of her life, those present to scamper for safety, and Ms. Quijano to pass
having been hunted by armed men; that their house in Tabaco, over the railing of the rostrum so as to be able to leave the
Albay was ransacked, her family harassed by the foreclosure courtroom. It was verified that the brownout was limited to
of the mortgage on their house by the local Rural Bank, and the building housing the Sandiganbayan, it not having
ejected therefrom when she ignored the request of its manager affected the nearby Manila City Hall and the Finance
to talk with her about her proposed testimony; that a certain Building. Justice Herrera declared that the main switchboard
William Fariñas offered her plane tickets for a trip abroad; of the Sandiganbayan electrical system was located beside the
that Mayor Rudy Faridas of Laoag City kept on calling her
room occupied by Malacañang people who were keeping track the prosecution, nor the actual fact that Senator
of the proceedings.” Aquino was killed at the Manila International
Atty. Lupino Lazaro for petitioners further made of Airport. Justice Herrera had accurately pointed
record at that August 26th hearing that the two Olivas out that such attempt of scrambling Aquino’s
sisters, Ana and Catherine (hospitality girls) plane merely showed a ‘wider range of
disappeared on September 4, 1984, two weeks after conspiracy,’ it being possibly just one of two or
Ninoy’s assassination. And the informant, by the name three other plans designed to accomplish the
of Evelyn (also a hospitality girl) who jotted down the same purpose of liquidating Senator Aquino. In
number of the car that took them away, also disappeared. any event, even assuming that the said piece of
On January 29, 1984, during the proceedings of the evidence could go either way, it may not be
Board, Lina Galman, the common-law wife of Rolando successfully contended that it was prudent or
Galman, was kidnapped together with a neighbor named wise on the part of the prosecution to totally
Rogelio Taruc. They have been missing since then, discard the said piece of evidence. Despite minor
despite his attempts to find any of them. According to inconsistencies contained therein, its
him, “nobody was looking for these five persons because introduction could have helped the cause of the
they said Marcos was in power [despite his appeal to the prosecution. If it were not so, or that it would
Minister of National Defense to locate them]. Today, still even favor the defense, as averred by Justice
no one is looking for these people.” And he appealed to Fernandez, the determined effort to suppress the
the new leadership for its assistance in learning their same would have been totally uncalled for.”
fate. 2. 4.Nine proposed rebuttal witnesses not presented.
3. 5.The failure to exhaust available remedies
1. 3.The discarding of the affidavits executed by U.S. against adverse developments: “When the
Supreme Court denied the petition of Justice
78
Fernandez [against the exclusion of the
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED testimonies given by the military respondents
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan headed by Gen. Ver before the Fact Finding
Board], the latter almost immediately
1. airmen: “While it is true that the U.S. airmen’s announced to media that he was not filing a
proposed testimonies would show an attempt of motion for the reconsideration of said denial, for
the Philippine Air Force to divert the plane to the reason that it would be futile to do so and
Basa Airfield or some other place, such showing foolhardy to expect a favorable action on the
would not necessarily contravene the theory of same. x x x. His posture x x x is, in the
 least, indicative that he was living up to the employees of the Sandiganbayan who, according to
instruction of finishing the trial of the case as Justice Pamaran, Were present during the supposed
soon as possible, if not of something else.” raffle, presented to corroborate the claim of Justice
4. 6.The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran as regards the said raffle.
Pamaran: “Justice Herrera testified xxx xxx xxx
that President Marcos ordered Justice Pamaran “It is also an admitted fact that the two Informations in
point-blank to handle the case. The pro- the double murder case were filed by Justice Herrera on
forma denial by Justice Pamaran of such January 23, 1985, at 12:02 p.m., and the members of the
instruction crumbles under the actuality of such Raffle Committee were summoned at 12:20 p.m. or only
directive having been complied with to the letter. 18 minutes after the filing of the two Informations. Such
x x x. speed in the actual assignment of the case can truly be
categorized as unusual, if not extraordinary, considering
“Justice Pamaran sought to discredit the claim that he that before a case filed may be included in the raffle,
was there is need for a certain amount of paper work to be
79 undertaken. If-such preliminary requirements were
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 79 done in this case within the limited time available
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan therefor, the charge that the raffle was rushed to avoid
ordered by President Marcos to handle the case the presence of media people would ring with truth.
personally by explaining that cases in the “What is more intriguing is the fact that although a
Sandiganbayan are assigned by raffle and not to a raffle might have been actually conducted which resulted
particular Justice, but to a division thereof. The evidence in the assignment of the case to the First Division of the
before the Commission on how the case happened to be Sandiganbayan, the Commission did not receive any
assigned to Justice Pamaran evinces a strong indication evidence on how or why it was handled personally by
that such assignment was not done fairly or regularly. Justice Pamaran who wrote the decision thereof, and not
“There was no evidence at all that the assignment was by any one of the two other members of his division. x x
indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, except the x.”
uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran. x x
x Despite an announcement that Justice Escareal would 1. 7.The custody of the accused; their confinement in
be presentedby the respondents to testify on the contents a
of his aforesaid Memorandum, such was not done. No
reason was given why Justice Escarel could not, or would 80
not like to testify. Neither was any one of the officials or 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Galman vs. Sandiganbayan may be necessary. Justice Pamaran had candidly
admitted that television cameras “boldly
1. military camp, instead of in a civilian jail: “When carrying the label of ‘Office of the President of the
the question of custody came up after the case Philippines’ ” were installed in the courtroom for
was filed in the Sandiganbayan, the latter issued that purpose. There was a room in the
an order directing the confinement of the accused Sandiganbayan, mischievously called ‘war room’,
in the City Jail of Manila. This order was not wherein military and Malacañang personnel
car: ried out in view of the information given by stayed to keep track of the proceedings.” the close
the Warden of the City Jail that there was no monitoring by Malacañang showed its results on
space for the twenty-six accused in said jail. The several occasions specified in the
same information was given when the custody Report. Malacañang was immediately aware of
was proposed to be given to the National the Japanese witness Wakamiya’s presence in
Penitentiary in Muntinglupa and to the National Justice Herrera’s office on August 21, 1985 and
Bureau of Investigation. At that point, the forestalled the giving of his testimony by having
defense came up with Presidential Decree No. the Japanese Embassy advise Wakamiya to leave
1950-A which authorizes the custody of the the country at once. Likewise, Col. Balbino Diego,
accused military personnel with their respective Malacañang intelligence chief, suddenly
Commanding Officers. Justice Herrera claimed appeared at the National Bureau of Investigation
that the said Presidential Decree was not known office when the “crying lady” Rebecca
even to the Tanodbayan Justice Fernandez who Quijano was brought there by NBI agents for
had to call up the then Minister of Justice interrogation and therein
Estelito Mendoza to request a copy of the same,
and was given such copy only after sometime. x x 81
x.” VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 81
2. 8.The monitoring of proceedings and developments Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
from Malacañang and by Malacañang
personnel:“There is an uncontradicted 1. sought to obtain custody of her. “It is likewise an
evidence that the progress of the proceedings in undisputed fact,” the Commission noted
the Sandiganbayan as well as the developments “that several military personnel pretended to be
of the case outside the Court had been monitored deputy sheriffs of the Sandiganbayan and
by Malacañang presumably for it to know what attended the trials thereof in the prescribed
was happening and to take remedial measures as deputy sheriffs’ uniforms.” The Commission’s
 inescapable finding: “It is abundantly the two informations, and accordingly, they incur neither
clear that President Marcos did not only give criminal nor civil liability.’ It is a rare phenomenon to see
instructions as to how the case should be handled. a person accused of a crime to be favored with such total
He saw to it that he would know if his instructions absolution. x x x
will be complied with.” “Doubt on the soundness of the decision entertained
2. 9.Partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its by one of the two justices who concurred with the
decision: “That President Marcos had wanted all majority decision penned by Justice Pamaran
of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not was revealed by Justice Herrera who testified that in
be denied. The disposal of the case in said manner October, 1985, when the decision was be-
is an integral part of the scenario which was 82
cleverly designed to accomplish two principal 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
objectives, seemingly conflicting in themselves; Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
but favorable both to then administration and to ing prepared, Justice Augusto Amores told him that he
the accused; to wit, [1] the satisfaction of the was of the view that some of the accused should be
public clamor for the suspected killers of Senator convicted, he having found difficulty in acqutting all of
Aquino to be charged in court, and [2] the them; however, he confided to Justice Herrera that
foreclosure of any possibility that they may again Justice Pamaran made it clear to him and Justice Vera
be prosecuted for the same offense in the event Cruz that Malacañang had instructions to acquit all of
that President Marcos shall no longer be in power. the twenty-six accused (TSN, July 17, 1986, p.
49). Justice Amores also told Justice Herrera that he
“In rendering its decision, the Sandiganbayan overdid would confirm this statement (which was mentioned in
itself in favoring the presidential directive. Its bias and Justice Herrera’s comment to the Second Motion for
partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly obvious. Reconsideration) if asked about it (TSN, June 19, 1986,
The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally pp. 92-93). This testimony of Justice Herrera remained
ignored and disregarded. x x x. It was deemed hot unrebutted.” (Italics supplied)
sufficient to simply acquit all of the twenty-six accused The record shows suffocatingly that from beginning to
on the standard ground that their guilt had not been end, the then President used, or more precisely, misused
proven beyond reasonable doubt, as was the most logical the overwhelming resources of the government and his
and appropriate way of justifying the acquittal in the authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of
case, there not being a total absence of evidence that the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases.
could show guilt on the part of the accused. The decision As graphically depicted in the Report, supra, and borne
had to pronounce them ‘innocent of the crime charged on out by the happenings (res ipsa loquitur ), since the
22
resolution prepared by his “Coordinator,” Manuel Lazaro, determined ignominious final outcome are without
his Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs, for the parallel and precedent in our annals and jurisprudence.
Tanodbayan’s dismissal of the cases against all accused To borrow a phrase from Ninoy’s April 14, 1975 letter
was unpalatable (it would summon the demonstrators withdrawing his petition for habeas corpus, “This is the
25

back to the streets ) and at any rate was not acceptable

23 evil of one-man rule at its very worst.” Our Penal Code
to the Herrera prosecution panel, the unholy scenario for penalizes “any executive officer who shall address
acquittal of all 26 accused after the rigged trial as any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with
ordered at the Malacañang conference, would accomplish respect to any case or business coming within the
the two principal objectives of satisfaction of the public exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice.” His
26

clamor for the suspected killers to be charged in court obsession for “the boys’ ” acquittal led to
and of giving them through their acquittal the legal several first which would otherwise be inexplicable:—
shield of double jeopardy. 24

Indeed, the secret Malacañang conference at which 1. 1.He turned his back on and repudiated the
the findings of the very Fact Finding Board that he
_______________ himself appointed to investigate the “national
tragedy and national shame” of the “treacherous
22 “The thing speaks for itself.”
23 According to Gen. Olivas’ counsel, Atty. N. Quisumbing’s and vicious assassination of Ninoy Aquino” and
statement at last August 26th hearing, what could have concerned “to ventilate the truth through free, independent
President Marcos “x x x to me what concerned him in the security of the and dispassionate investigation by prestigious
State. Did he like the demonstrators to go back to the streets.?”
24 Sec. 22 of the Bill of Rights provides: “No person shall be twice put
and free investigators.”
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by 2. 2.He cordially received the chairman with her
a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall minority report one day ahead of the four
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.” majority members and instantly referred it to
83
respondents “for final resolution through the
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 83 legal system” as if it were the majority and
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan controlling report; and rebuked the four majority
authoritarian President called together the Presiding members when they presented to him the next
Justice of the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan day their report calling for the indictment of all
Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel headed by 26 respondents headed by Gens. Ver and Olivas
Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera and told them how to (instead of the lesser seven under the chairman’s
handle and rig (moro-moro) the trial and the close minority report).
monitoring of the entire proceedings to assure the pre-
 3. 3.From the day after the Aquino assassination to evidence on the basis of which the Fact Finding
the dictated verdict of acquittal, he totally Board had unanimously declared the soldiers’
disregarded the Board’s majority and minority version of Galman being Aquino’s killer a
findings of fact and publicly insisted that the “perjured story, given deliberately and in
military’s “fall guy” Rolando Galman was the conspiracy with one another.”
killer of Ninoy Aquino and sought futilely to
justify the soldiers’ incompetence and gross The fact of the secret Malacañang conference of January
negligence to provide any security for 10, 1985 at which the authoritarian President discussed
with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the
________________ entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent
filing of the criminal charges against all the twenty-six
Supra, fn. 1 on page 3 hereof.
25

Article 243, Revised Penal Code.

26
accused (as admitted by respondent Justice Fernandez
84 to have been confirmed by him to the then President’s
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “Coordinator” Manuel Lazaro on the preceding day) is
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan not denied. It is without precedent. This was illegal
under our penal laws, supra. This illegality vitiated from
1. Ninoy in contrast to their alacrity in gunning the very beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan
down the alleged assassin Galman and sealing court headed by the very Presiding Justice who attended.
his lips. As the Commission noted: “The very acts of being
2. 4.The Sandiganbayan’s decision (Pamaran, summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence
J. ponente)in effect convicted Rolando Galman as thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in
Ninoy’s assassin notwithstanding that he was themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. x x x
not on trial but the victim according to the very Verily, it can be said that any avowal of independent
information filed, and evidence to the contrary action or resistance to presidential pressure became
submitted, by the Herrera prosecution panel; and illusory from the very moment they stepped inside
3. 5.Justice Pamaran’s ponencia (despite Malacañang Palace on January 10, 1985.”
reservations expressed by Justice Amores who No court whose Presiding Justice has received “orders
wanted to convict some of the accused) granted or suggestions” from the very President who by an
all 26 accused total absolution and pronounced amendatory decree (disclosed only at the hearing of oral
them “innocent of the crimes charged in the two arguments on November 8, 1984 on a petition
informations, and accordingly, they incur neither challenging the referral of the Aquino-Galman murder
criminal nor civil liability,” notwithstanding the cases to the Tanodbayan and San-
 85 The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 85 and ver-
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan _______________
diganbayan instead of to a court martial, as mandatory 26-aSee the writer’s separate opinion in G.R. Nos. 69025 and 69046
required by the known P.D. 1850 at the time providing “Arturo M. de Castro vs. Hon. Estelito Mendoza, et al.), June 4, 1985:
for exclusive jurisdiction of courts martial over criminal “Petitioners cite long-standing laws and practice that Armed Forces
offenses committed by military men ) made it possible
26-a officers and men are exclusively tried and punished by the executive
process of court martial pursuant to the Articles of War. But respondent
to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be an
minister disclosed at the hearing of oral arguments on November 8,
impartial court, which is the very essence of due process 1984 the issuance of P.D. No. 1952 dated September 5, 1984 concededly
of law. As the writer then wrote, “jurisdiction over cases not published nor disclosed prior to said date whereby ‘the President
should be determined by law, and not by preselection of may, in the interest of justice, order or direct, at any time before
arraignment, that a particular case be tried by the appropriate civil
the Executive, which could be much too easily court’ and thereby waive the mandatory court martial jurisdiction.”
transformed into a means of predetermining the outcome 26-b Osmeña, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, 41 SCRA 199, 205 (1971).

of individual cases.” - This criminal collusion as to the

26 b 86
handling and treatment of the cases by public 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
respondents at the secret Malacañang conference (and Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel dict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified. The
Herrera) completely disqualified respondent courts of the land under its aegis are courts of
Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. This law and justice andequity. They would have no reason to
renders moot and irrelevant for now the extensive exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of
arguments of respondents accused, particularly injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and
Generals Ver and Olivas and those categorized as suppress the truth, instead of repositories of judicial
accessories, that there has been no evidence or witness power whose judges are sworn and committed to render
suppressed against them, that the erroneous conclusions impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or
of Olivas as police investigator do not make him an protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a
accessory of the crimes he investigated and the appraisal wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the
and evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses pressures of politics and prejudice. More so, in the case
presented and suppressed. There will be time and at bar where the people and the world are entitled to
opportunity to present all these arguments and know the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system
considerations at the remand and retrial of the cases is at stake. In life, as an accused before the military
herein ordered before a neutral and impartial court. tribunal, Ninoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he
was entitled to due process of law and trial in the regular
civil courts before an impartial court with an unbiased “The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic
prosecutor. In death, Ninoy, as the victim of the constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their
“treacherous and vicious assassination” and the relatives jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State’s right to due
and sovereign people as the aggrieved parties plead once process raises a serious jurisdictional issue (Gumabon vs.
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-30026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan.
more for due process of law and a retrial before an
30, 1971] which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will.
impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. The Court
Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is
is constrained to declare the sham trial a mock trial—the apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void
non-trial of the century—and that the predetermined for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370 [May 25,
judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio. 1973], 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA
416 [Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered
1. 1.No double jeopardy.—It is settled doctrine that notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a ‘lawless
double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
Court’s setting aside of the trial courts’ judgment ignored wherever it exhibits its head’ (Aducayen vs. Flores,
of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution supra).
which represents the sovereign people in “Respondent Judge’s dismissal order dated July 7, 1967
criminal cases is denied due process. As the being null and void for lack of jurisdiction, the same does not
constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino
Court stressed in the 1985 case of People vs.
vs. Zosa, supra).
Bocar, 27
xxx xxx xxx
“Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment,
“Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid
prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or
violated. 27-a
otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
_______________
accused (People vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851). The lower court was
27 138 SCRA 166 (Aug. 16, 1985) per Makasiar, C.J. (retired). See not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it
also Combate vs. San Jose, Jr., 135 SCRA 693 (April 15, 1985), per violated the right of the prosecution to due process.
Melencio-Herrera, J. and People vs. Catolico, 38 SCRA 389 (1971), per “In effect, the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the
Teehankee, J.; People vs. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264 (1975), per E.A. remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial
Fernandez, J. before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of
27-a Uy vs. Genato, L-37399, 57 SCRA 123 [May 29, 1974]; Serino vs.
the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second
Sosa, L-33116, 40 SCRA 433 [Aug. 31, 1971]; People vs.
87
jeopardy.”
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 87 More so does the rule against the invoking of double
jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we have held,
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
the sham trial was but a mock trial where the
authoritarian president ordered respondents “cajoled into producing witnesses and pressed on making
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and assurances that if given a certain period, they will be
closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the able to produce their witnesses,” Herrera pleaded for “a
predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total reasonable period of preparation of its evidence” and
absolution as innocent of all the respondents-accused. cited other pending cases before respondent court that
Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera were pending trial for a much longer time where the
which saw him near the end “deactivating” himself from “dizzying tempo” and “fast pace” were not maintained by
the case, as it was the court. Manifestly, the prosecution and the sovereign
28

_______________ people were denied due process of law with a partial

court and biased Tanodbayan under the constant and
Gomez, L-22345, 20 SCRA 293 [May 29, 1967]; People vs. Balisacan,
L-26376, 17 SCRA 1119 [Aug. 31, 1966]. pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted by the
88 authoritarian President to assure the carrying out of his
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED instructions. A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void
his belief that its eventual resolution was already a judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all.
foregone conclusion, they could not cope with the misuse It neither binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is “a
and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw”. It is a
authoritarian President to weaken the case of the terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the
prosecution, to suppress its evidence, harass, intimidate people. To paraphrase Brandeis: If the authoritarian
29

and threaten its witnesses, secure their recantation or head of the government becomes the lawbreaker, he
prevent them from testifying. Fully aware of the breeds contempt for the law, he invites every man to
prosecution’s difficulties in locating witnesses and become a law un-
_______________
overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to appear
and testify, respondent Sandiganbayan maintained a 28 Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera’s Comment dated April 14, 1986, see

“dizzying tempo” of the proceedings and announced its Annex “D”.

intention to terminate the proceedings in about 6 months 29 Olmstead vs. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, dissenting opinion of Brandeis, J.

89
time or less than a year, pur-suant to the scripted
scenario. The prosecution complained of “the Presiding VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 89
Justice’s seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)” and Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
their being the subject of warnings, reprimand and to himself, he invites anarchy.
contempt proceedings as compared to the nil situation for Respondents-accused’s contention that the
the defense. Herrera likewise complained of being Sandiganbayan judgment of acquittal ends the case
which cannot be appealed or reopened, without being put Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzales’ charge that
in double jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Justice Vera-Cruz had been passing coaching
Court in People vs. Court of Appeals, which is fully notes to defense counsel. Justrice Herrera had
applicable here, as follows: “That is the general rule and joined the motion and pleaded at the hearing of
presupposes a valid judgment. As earlier pointed out, June 25, 1985 and in the prosecution
however, respondent Courts’ Resolution of acquittal was memorandum that respondent Sandiganbayan
a void judgment for haying been issued without “should not decide the case on the merits without
jurisdiction. No double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A first making a final ruling on the Motion for
void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By it Inhibition.” Herrera quoted
no rights are divested. Through it, no rights can be
attained. Being worthless, all proceedings founded upon _______________
it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars anyone. 101 SCRA 450 (1980), per Melencio-Herrera, J.; italics supplied.
30

All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of 90

it are void. 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
xxx xxx xxx Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
“Private respondent invoke ‘justice for the innocent’. For
justice to prevail, the scales must balance. It is not to be 1. the exchange between him and the Presiding
dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of the Justice to show the latter’s “following the script
society, which they have wronged must also be equally of Malacañang”—
considered. A judgment of conviction is hot necessarily a
denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal neither “PJ PAMARAN
necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party
wronged, to the society offended, it could also mean “Well, the court believes that we should proceed with the trial
injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role. They and then deal later on with that. After all, the most important
render justice where justice is due. 30 thing here is, shall we say, the decision of the case.”

1. 2.Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been “J. HERRERA

resolved ahead.—The private prosecutors had
I think more important than the decision of the case, Your
filed a motion to disqualify and for inhibition of Honor, is the capacity of the Justices to sit in judgment. That
respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan on is more important than anything else.” (p. 13 TSN, June 25,
grounds of manifest bias and partiality to the 1985) (Italics supplied by Herrera).” 31

defense and arising from then Atty. (now

 But the Sandiganbayan brushed aside Herrera’s pleas and temporary restraining order enjoining the
then wrongly blamed him, in the decision, for supposedly not Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been
having joined the petition for inhibition, contrary to the facts taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the
above-stated, as follows: respondents’, including the Sandiganbayan’s, comments.
“x x x the motion for inhibition above referred to related
Although no restraining order was issued anew,
exclusively for the contempt proceeding. Too, it must be
respondent Sandiganbayan should not have
remembered that the prosecution neither joined that petition,
nor did it at any time manifest a desire to file a similar motion precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all
prior to the submission of these cases for decision. To do it now the accused pending the final action of this Court. This
is not alone out of season but is also a confession of official is the teaching of Valdez vs. Aquilizan , wherein the
35

insouciance.” (Page 22, Decision). 32 court in setting aside the hasty convictions, ruled that
The action for prohibition was filed in the Court to seek “prudence dictated that (respondent judge) refrain from
the disqualification of respondents Justices pursuant to deciding the cases or at the very least to hold in abeyance
the procedure recognized by the Court in the 1969 case the promulgation of his decision pending action by this
of Paredes vs. Gopengco since an adverse ruling by
33 Court. But prudence gave way to imprudence; the
respondent court might result in a verdict of acquittal, respondent judge acted precipitately by deciding the
leaving the offended party without any remedy nor cases [hastily without awaiting this Court’s action]. All
appeal in view of the double jeopardy rule, not to mention of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse
the overiding and transcendental public interest that of discretion on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction
would make out a case of denial of due process to the which substantively prejudiced the petitioner.”
People if the alleged failure on the part of the
Tanodbayan to present the complete evidence for the 1. 3.Re: Objections of respondents.—The other
prosecution is related objections of respondents’ counsels must
_______________ be rejected in the face of the Court’s declaration
that the trial was a mock trial and that the
Deputy Tanodbayan’s Comments dated April 14, 1986.
predetermined judgment of acquittal was
31

32 Idem.
33 29 SCRA 688 (1969), per Teehankee, J. unlawful and void ab initio.
91
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 91 1. (a)It follows that there is no need to resort to a
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan direct action to annul the judgment, instead of
substantiated. 34 the present action which was timely filed initially
In this case, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of to declare a mistrial and to enjoin the rendition
the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the of the void judgment. And after the hasty
 rendition of such judgment for the declaration of authoritarian president on public respondents
its nullity, following the presentation of and that no evidence was suppressed against
competent proof heard by the Commission and them must be held to be untenable in the wake of
the Court’s findings therefrom that the the evil plot now exposed for their preordained
proceedings were from the beginning vitiated not wholesale exoneration.
only by lack of due process but also by the 5. (e)Respondents’ invocation of the writer’s opinion
collusion between the public respondents (court in Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Bldg.
Co., Inc. is inappropriate. The writer therein
36

_______________ held that a party should be entitled to only one

34 Cf. Mateo vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 19; Pimentel vs. Salonga, 21
Supreme Court and may not speculate on vital
SCRA 160; Luque vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 165. changes in the Court’s membership for review of
35 133 SCRA 150, (1984) per Abad Santos, J. (retired); notes in his lost case once more, since public policy and
brackets supplied. sound practice demand that litigation be put to
92
an end and no second pro forma motion for
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED reconsideration reiterating the same arguments
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan should be kept pending so long (for over six (6)
years and one (1) month since the denial of the
1. and Tanodbayan) for the rendition of a first motion for reconsideration). This opinion
predetermined verdict of acquitting all the cannot be properly invoked, because here,
twenty-six respondents-accused. petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration
2. (b)It is manifest that this does not involve a case was filed promptly on March 20, 1986 following
of mere irregularities in the conduct of the the denial under date of February 4th of the first
proceedings or errors of judgment which do not motion for reconsideration and the same was
affect the integrity or validity of the judgment or admitted per the Court’s Resolution of April 3,
verdict. 1986 and is now being resolved within five
3. (c)The contention of one of defense counsel that months of its filing after the Commission had
the State and the sovereign people are not received the evidence of the parties who were
entitled to due process is clearly erroneous and heard by the Court only last August 26th. Then,
contrary to the basic principles and the second motion for reconsideration is based on
jurisprudence cited hereinabove. an entirely new material ground which was not
4. (d)The submittal of respondents-accused that they known at the time of the denial of the petition
had not exerted the pressure applied by the
 and filing of the first motion for reconsideration, As recently retired Senior Justice Vicente Abad Santos
i.e, recalled in his valedictory to the new members of the Bar
last May, “In the past few years, the judiciary was under
_______________ heavy attack by an extremely powerful executive. During
3686 SCRA 305 (1978) per Teehankee, J.
this state of judicial siege, lawyers both in and outside
93 the judiciary perceptively surrendered to the animus of
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 93 technicality. In the end, morality was overwhelmed by
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan technicality, so that the latter emerged ugly and naked
in its true manifestation.”
1. the secret Malacañang conference on January 10, Now that the light is emerging, the Supreme Court
1985 which came to light only fifteen months faces the task of restoring public faith and confidence in
later in March, 1986 and showed beyond per- the courts. The Supreme Court enjoys neither the power
adventure (as proved in the Commission of the sword nor of the purse. Its strength lies mainly in
hearings) the merits of the petition and that the public confidence, based on the truth and moral force of
authoritarian president had dictated and its judgments. This has been built on its cherished
predetermined the final outcome of acquittal. traditions of objectivity and impartiality, integrity and
Hence, the ten members of the Court (without fairness and unswerving loyalty to the Constitution and
any new appointees) unanimously voted to admit the rule of law which compels acceptance as well by the
the second motion for reconsideration. 37
leadership as by the people. The lower courts draw their
2. 4.With the declaration of nullity of the bearings from the Supreme Court. With this Court’s
proceedings, the cases must now be tried before judgment today declaring the nullity of the questioned
an impartial court with an unbiased judgment or ac-
_______________
prosecutor.—There has been the long dark night
of authoritarian regime, since the fake ambush Except for the writer who was appointed and took his oath of office
37

in September, 1972 of then Defense Secretary as Chief Justice on April 2nd. See footnote 15, on p. 13.
Juan Ponce Enrile (as now admitted by Enrile 94
himself) was staged to trigger the imposition of 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
martial law and authoritarian one-man rule, Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
with the padlocking of Congress and the abolition quittal and directing a new trial, there must be a
of the office of the Vice-President. rejection of the temptation of becoming instruments of
injustice as vigorously as we rejected becoming its
victims. The end of one form of injustice should not
become simply the beginning of another. This simply of retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado M.
means that the respondents accused must now face trial Vasquez, chairman, and retired Court of Appeals
for the crimes charged against them before an impartial Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa
court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. as members. In the pure spirit of public service,
What the past regime had denied the people and the they rendered selflessly and without
aggrieved parties in the sham trial must now be assured remuneration thorough, competent and
as much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties. The dedicated service in discharging their tasks of
people will assuredly have a way of knowing when justice hearing and receiving the evidence, evaluating
has prevailed as well as when it has failed. the same and submitting their Report and
The notion nurtured under the past regime that those findings to the Court within the scheduled
appointed to public office owe their primary allegiance to
the appointing authority and are accountable to him 95
alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 95
discarded. The function of the appointing authority with Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
the mandate of the people, under our system of period and greatly easing the Court’s burden.
government, is to fill the public posts. While the ACCORDINGLY, petitioners’ second motion for
appointee may acknowledge with gratitude the reconsideration is granted. The resolutions of November
opportunity thus given of rendering public service, the 28, 1985 dismissing the petition and of February 4, 1986
appointing authority becomes functus officio and the denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration are
primary loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the hereby set aside and in lieu thereof, judgment is hereby
Constitution and the sovereign people in accordance with rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent
his sacred oath of office. To paraphrase the late Chief Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acquittal in
Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court, Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled “People of
the Justices and judges must ever realize that they have the Philippines vs. Gen. Luther Custodio, et al.” and
no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be
only the public interest as they see it in accordance with conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful
their oath of office, guided only the Constitution and regard for the requirements of due process, so that the
their own conscience and honor. truth may be finally known and justice done to all.
This resolution is immediately executory. SO
1. 5.Note of Commendation.—The Court expresses ORDERED.
its appreciation with thanks for the invaluable
services rendered by the Commission composed
 Yap, Cruz, Paras and Feliciano, the prosecution failed to fully ventilate its position and
JJ., concur. Feria, ***** Fernan and Narvasa, JJ., no ****** to lay out before respondent Court all the pertinent facts
part. which could have helped that Court in arriving at a just
Melencio-Herrera, J., concurring in a separate decision. It had, thus, failed in its task.
opinion. “A public prosecutor is ‘the representative not of an ordinary
Alampay, J., with separate statement. party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur and submit a separate to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to
statement. govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall
Feliciano, J., I join Gutierrez, Jr., J., in his
be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and every definite sense
statements in the last three paragraphs (prior to the
the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt
dispositive paragraph) of his Separate Concurring shall not escape or innocence suffer.” [Italics ours] (Suarez vs.
Opinion. Platon, 69 Phil. 556 [1940])
“He owes the state, the court and the accused the duty to
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: lay before the court the pertinent facts at his disposal with
methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying
Consistent with what I had perceived as the need to contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in his
establish the truth behind the vicious assassination of evidence to the end that the court’s mind may not be tortured
the late Senator Benigno Aquino, as expressed in my by doubts, the innocent may not suffer, and the guilty may not
dissenting opinion in Galman vs. Pamaran (138 SCRA escape unpunished” (People vs. Esquivel, 82 Phil. 453 [1948]).
294, 379 [1985]), and so that justice may be done, I vote Respondent Court, in showing partiality for the accused
for the re-trial prayed for by petitioners. from beginning to end, from the raffle of the subject cases
_______________ to the promulgation of judgment, which absolved the
accused, en masse, from any and all liability, is equally
***** Feria, J., inhibited himself, petitioner Maria Feria being his
sister. culpable for miscarriage of justice. Due process of law,
Fernan, J., one of the petitioners, and Narvasa, J., who was
****** which “requires a hearing before an impartial and
general counsel of the Fact Finding Board, took no part. disinterested tribunal” and the right of every litigant to
96
“nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Judge” (Gutierrez vs. Santos, 112 Phil. 184 [1961];
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan Castillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 124 [1975]), was violated.
There is reason to believe that some vital evidence had The proceedings below, having been vitiated by lack
been suppressed by the prosecution, or that it had of due process, to the detriment of the State and the
disregarded, as immaterial or irrelevant, evidence which, People, were invalid and the judgment rendered null and
if presented, could affect the outcome of the case. As it is,
void ab initio. There having been no trial at all in the accused could no longer be prosecuted under the
contemplation of law, there is likewise no judgment on doctrine of double jeopardy; the “categorization” of the
which a plea of double jeopardy may be leased. “To accused into principals, accomplices and accessories so
entitle the accused to the plea of former jeopar- that not all of them would be denied bail during the trial,
97 were fraudulently conceived for their benefit and for the
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 97 purpose of protecting them from subsequent prosecution.
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan It is, thus, no bar to a subsequent prosecution for the
dy, the proceedings must have been valid (State vs. same offense (Coumas vs. Superior Court, 192 P. 2d. 449,
Bartlett, 164 N.W., 757; State vs. O’Day 185 So. 290). 452, 31 C. 2d. 682). “A verdict of acquittal procured by
The lack of any fundamental requisite which would the accused by fraud and collusion is a nullity and does
render void the judgment would make ineffective a plea not put him in jeopardy; and consequently, it is no bar to
of jeopardy based on such proceedings (Steen vs. State, a second trial for the same offense (State vs. Lee, 30A.
242 S.W. 1047). 1110, 65 Conn. 265,48 Am. SR. 202, 27 L. RA. 498).
The accused, however, argue that double jeopardy The proceedings below having been fatally flawed by
attaches for, even assuming without conceding, that pressure, fraud and collusion, with the legal consequence
pressure and collusion did take place, they were not a that there was no trial and judgment to speak of, and
party to the same; and, for those who were charged only under the circumstances peculiar only to these cases, I
either as accomplices or accessories, they contend that vote for a re-trial in the interest of truth and the ends of
their alleged offense involved only a cover-up in the public justice. As in all
investigation of the crimes so that, whatever pressure 98
was exerted could only have benefited the principals, 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
consequently, to subject them to a re-trial is to put them Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
twice in jeopardy. criminal proceedings, however, the accused must be
It is true that where an accused was not a party to the guaranteed a fair, speedy, and impartial re-trial before
fraud, a conviction secured fraudulently by the State’s an unbiased Tribunal and prosecutor and, I might add,
officer cannot be avoided by the state (State vs. Heflin, safeguarded against trial by publicity.
96 So. 459, 19 Ala. App. 222). However, that exception is
inapplicable to the cases at bar where both the ALAMPAY, J., concurring, with separate statement:
prosecution and the Trial Court itself were parties to the
fraud and collusion. Nor can it be said that the accused Considering that certain significant facts and
were not a part thereof. The agreement to file the murder circumstances not previously disclosed to the Court were
charge in Court so that, after being acquitted as planned, found by the Commission constituted by this Court,
purposely to inquire and ascertain the veracity of the SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
same, to be duly established by sufficient evidence and
are indicative of “a scripted and predetermined manner GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder
case x x x;” and that there exists “adequate credible On November 28, 1985, this Court dismissed the petition
evidence showing that the prosecution in the Aquino- for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the injunction and lifted a Temporary Restraining Order
same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which earlier granted. We are now acting on a motion for
proved to be beyond their capacity to resist and which reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its When the Court initially dismissed the petition, I
position and to offer all the evidences it could have issued a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. The
otherwise presented, but also predetermined the issues before us were novel and momentous. I felt that in
outcome of the case; x x x” I join in granting petitioners’ immediately dismissing the petition, we were denying
second motion for reconsideration. the petitioners every reasonable opportunity to prove
In my considered view, the ends of Justice will be best their allegations of nonindependent and biased conduct
served by allowing the trial anew of the subject cases in of both the prosecution and the trial court. I stated that
order to ultimately obtain a judgment that will be the issues of miscarriage of justice and due process
removed from any suspicion of attendant irregularities. arising from that conduct should be allowed more
With the greatest significance being given by our people extended treatment. With then Associate Justices
to the said cases, which are evidently of historical Claudio Teehankee and Vicente Abad Santos, I,
importance, I am readily persuaded that it is to our therefore, dissented from the Court’s resolution denying
national interest that all relevant evidence that may be the petitioners’ motions to continue presenting their case.
now available be provided an opportunity to be received Since the majority of the Court, however, had decided
and made known so that whatever is the actual truth can to resolve the petition on its merits and the findings of
be rightfully ascertained. the Vasquez Commission were still for the future, I
I, therefore, vote for a declaration of mistrial and for concurred in the result of this Court’s action on two
nullifying the proceedings of the referred Criminal Cases grounds—(1) the right of the accused to speedy trial and
Nos. 10010 and 10011 before the Sandiganbayan and the (2) the presumption in law that judicial acts are
ordering of a retrial. regularly performed and that public officers have
99 discharged their duties in accordance with law.
VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 99 The findings of the Vasquez Commission now confirm
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan my initial misgivings and more than overcome the
presumption of regular performance of official duty upon The right against double jeopardy is intended to
which I based my concurrence. protect against repeated litigations and continuous
What were some of these misgivings now given harassment of a person who has already undergone the
substance by the investigation? agony of prosecution and trial for one and the same
Mistrial is usually raised by the accused. In this offense. It certainly was never intended to cover a
petition neither the accused nor the prosecution saw situation where the prosecution suppresses some of its
anything wrong in the proceedings. We had the unusual own evidence, where the accused correctly and eagerly
phenomenon of the relatives of one victim, prominent anticipate a judgment of acquittal, and where the court
lawyers and law professors, appears to have made up its mind even before trial has
100 started.
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Under the circumstances found by the Vasquez
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan Commission, there was a failure of trial tantamount to
and retired Justices assuming the uncommon role of no trial at all. A “moro-moro” could not possibly result in
alleging not only a biased Sandiganbayan but also a a just or valid decision.
Tanodbayan holding back its own evidence. Instead of I am, however, constrained to write this separate
allowing the heated passions and emotions generated by opinion to emphasize a concern of this Court and of all
the Aquino assassination to cool off or die down, the Filipinos who want genuine justice to be realized in this
accused insisted on the immediate rendition of a decision. case.
The Sandiganbayan is usually sober and respectful in In the same way that we deplore the pressures and
its relations with the Supreme Court. I, therefore, found partiality which led to the judgment of acquittal, we
it strange and unfortunate why, in its Comment, the must insure that absolutely no indication of bias,
Sandiganbayan should question our authority to look prejudgment, or vindictiveness
into the exercise of its jurisdiction. There was the further 101
matter of television cameras during trial, their effect on VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 101
the witnesses and the judges, and other mischievous Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
potentialities. shall taint the retrial of this case. The fairly strong
The report of the Vasquez Commission now shows language used by the Court in its main opinion
that there was more to these misgivings and suspicions underscores the gravity with which it views the
than appeared in the records at that time. The Court’s travesties of justice in this “trial of the century.” At the
opinion penned by the Chief Justice states in detail why same time, nothing expressed in our opinion should be
the Sandiganbayan was not an impartial tribunal and interpreted as the Supreme Court’s making a factual
the Tanodbayan not an unbiased prosecutor. finding, one way or another, about the perpetrators of the
Aquino or the Galman killing. Any statements about the
circumstances of the assassination or about the military
version of the killings are intended solely for one issue—
whether or not the Sandiganbayan acquittals should be
set aside and a retrial ordered.
Neither our final resolution of this petition, the
stature of the persons involved, pakikisama, utang na
loob for an appointment or reappointment, or any other
extraneous matters should color or influence the future
course of this case.
Needless to say, any person who, in the past, may
have formally expressed opinions about the innocence or
guilt of the accused should be neither a prosecutor or
judge in any forthcoming trial. It is not enough for the
future proceedings to be fair; they should be above any
suspicion of partiality, bias, rancor, or vindictiveness. It
would be unfortunate if, in the conduct of further
proceedings in this case, erroneous impressions may
arise that a prosecutor or judge has prejudged the guilt
or innocence of any accused. Having just declared a
mistrial, we should not again declare the retrial as
another mistrial, ad infinitum.
For the reasons abovestated, I concur in the decision
of the Court to grant the petitioners’ second motion for
reconsideration.
Second motion for reconsideration granted.