EN BANC opposition leader former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr.

imprisoned for
almost eight years since the imposition of martial law in September, 1972 by then
G.R. No. 72670 September 12, 1986 President Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was sentenced to death by firing squad by a
SATURNINA GALMAN, REYNALDO GALMAN and JOSE P. BENGZON, MARY military tribunal for common offenses alleged to have been committed long before
CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, JOAQUIN G. BERNAS; S.J., M. BELLARMINE BERNAS, the declaration of martial law and whose jurisdiction over him as a civilian entitled
O.S.B., FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, SOLITA COLLAS-MONSOD, SANTIAGO DUMLAO, JR., to trial by judicial process by civil courts he repudiated. Ninoy pleaded in vain that
MARIA FERIA, MARCELO B. FERNAN, FRANCISCO GARCHITORENA, * ANDREW the military tribunals are admittedly not courts but mere instruments and subject to
GONZALEZ, JOSE C. LAURETA, SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, FELIX K. MARAMBA, JR., the control of the President as created by him under the General Orders issued by
CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA. JAIME V. ONGPIN, FELIX PEREZ, JOSE B.L. REYES, JOSE E. him as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and that he had
ROMERO, JR., RAMON DEL ROSARIO, JR., RICARDO J. ROMULO, AUGUSTO already been publicly indicted and adjudged guilty by the President of the charges
SANCHEZ, EMMANUEL V. SORIANO, DAVID SYCIP, ENRIQUE SYQUIA, CRISTINA in a nationwide press conference held on August 24, 1971 when he declared the
TAN, JESUS VARGAS, BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS, VICENTE JAYME, **, ​petitioners, evidence against Ninoy "not only strong but overwhelming ." 1​​ This followed the
vs. Plaza Miranda bombing of August 21, 1971 of the proclamation rally of the
SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION (represented by Justice Manuel Pamaran, opposition Liberal Party candidates for the November, 1971 elections (when eight
Chairman, and Justices Augusto Amores and Bienvenido Vera Cruz, Members), persons were killed and practically all of the opposition candidates headed by
JUSTICE BERNARDO FERNANDEZ (Ombudsman) and GEN. FABIAN C. VER, MAJ. Senator Jovito Salonga and many more were seriously injured), and the suspension
GEN. PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, BRIG. GEN. LUFHER A. CUSTODIO, COL. ARTURO G. of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 889 on August
CUSTODIO, COL. VICENTE B. TIGAS, JR., CAPT. FELIPE VALERIO, CAPT. LLEWELYN 23, 1971. The massacre was instantly attributed to the communists but the truth
KAVINTA, CAPT. ROMEO M. BAUTISTA, 2nd LT. JESUS CASTRO, SGT. PABLO has never been known. But the then President never filed the said charges against
MARTINEZ, SGT. ARNULFO DE MESA, SGT. TOMAS FERNANDEZ, SGT. CLARO LAT, Ninoy in the civil courts.
SGT. FILOMENO MIRANDA, SGT. ROLANDO C. DE GUZMAN, SGT. ERNESTO M. Ninoy Aquino was nevertheless thereafter allowed in May, 1980 to leave the
MATEO, SGT. RODOLFO M. DESOLONG, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA, SGT. PEPITO country to undergo successful heart surgery. After three years of exile and despite
TORIO, SGT. ARMANDO DELA CRUZ, SGT. PROSPERO A. BONA, CIC ROGELIO the regime's refusal to give him a passport, he sought to return home "to strive for
MORENO, CIC MARIO LAZAGA, AIC CORDOVA G. ESTELO, AIC ANICETO ACUPIDO a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice." He was to be cold-bloodedly
and HERMILO GOSUICO, *** , ​respondents. killed while under escort away by soldiers from his plane that had just landed at the
Lupino Lazaro and Arturo M. de Castro for petitioners. Manila International Airport on that fateful day at past 1 p.m. His brain was
smashed by a bullet fired point blank into the back of his head by a murderous
Antonio R. Coronel for respondents Gen. Ver and Col. Tigas, Jr. assassin, notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by airtight security of close to
Rodolfo U. Jimenez for respondent Brig. Gen. Custodio. 2,000 soldiers and "from a military viewpoint, it (was) technically impossible to get
inside (such) a cordon." 2​​ The military investigators reported within a span of three
Ramon M. Bernaldo for respondent H. Gosuico.
hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be
Romulo Quimbo for respondent B. Vera Cruz. 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
Norberto J. Quisumbing for respondent P. Olivas.
on August 17, 1983) was a communist-hired gunman, and that the military escorts
Felix Solomon for respondent Col. A. Custodio. gunned him down in turn. The military later filmed a re-enactment of the killing
Alfonso S. Cruz for B. Fernandez. scripted according to this version and continuously replayed it on all TV channels as
if it were taken live on the spot. The then President instantly accepted the military
Edgardo B. Gayos for M. Pamaran. version and repeated it in a nationally televised press conference that he gave late
RESOLUTION in the evening of August 22, 1983, wherein he said, in order to induce disbelief that
the military had a hand in the killing, that "if the purpose was to eliminate Aquino,
this was not the way to do it."
TEEHANKEE, ​C.J.: The national tragedy shocked the conscience of the entire nation and outraged the
Last August 21st, our nation marked with solemnity and for the first time in free world. The large masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of national
freedom the third anniversary of the treacherous assassination of foremost mourning and came out in millions in the largest and most orderly public turnout
for Ninoy's funeral reflected their grief for his martyrdom and their yearning for the The chairman wrote in her minority report (somewhat prophetically) that "The
truth, justice and freedom. epilogue to our work lies in what will transpire in accordance with the action that
the Office of the President may thereafter direct to be taken. "The four-member
The then President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board 3​​ to investigate
majority report (also prophetically) wrote in the epilogue (after warning the forces
"the treacherous and vicious assassination of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.
who adhere to an alien and intolerable political ideology against unscrupulously
on August 21, 1983 [which] has to all Filipinos become a national tragedy and
using the report "to discredit our traditionally revered institutions"), that "the
national shame specially because of the early distortions and exaggerations in both
tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time confirmed our worst fears of what
foreign and local media 4​​ so that all right thinking and honest men desire to
unchecked evil would be capable of doing." They wrote:
ventilate the truth through fare, independent and dispassionate investigation by
prestigious and free investigators." After two false starts, 5​​ he finally constituted the The task of the Board was clear and unequivocal. This task was
Board 6​​ on October 22, 1983 which held 125 hearing days commencing November not only to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding
3, 1983 (including 3 hearings in Tokyo and 8 hearings in Los Angeles, California) and the death of the late former Senator. Of greater significance is the
heard the testimonies of 194 witnesses recorded in 20,377 pages of transcripts, awesome responsibility of the Board to uphold righteousness over
until the submission of their minority and majority reports to the President on evil, justice over injustice, rationality over irrationality,
October 23 and 24, 1984. This was to mark another first anywhere in the world humaneness over inhumanity. The task was indeed a painful test,
wherein the minority report was submitted one day ahead by the ​ponente ​thereof, the inevitable result of which will restore our country's honored
the chairman, who was received congenially and cordially by the then President place among the sovereign nations of the free world where peace,
who treated the report as if it were the majority report instead of a minority report law and order, freedom, and justice are a way of life.
of one and forthwith referred it to respondent Tanodbayan "for final resolution
More than any other event in contemporary Philippine history,
through the legal system" and for trial in the Sandiganbayan which was better
the killing of the late former Senator Aquino has brought into
known as a graft court; and the majority report of the four other members was
sharper focus, the ills pervading Philippine society. It was the
submitted on the following day to the then President who coldly received them and
concretization of the horror that has been haunting this country
could scarcely conceal his instant rejection of their report with the grim statement
for decades, routinely manifested by the breakdown of peace and
that "I hope you can live with your conscience with what you have done."
order, economic instability, subversion, graft and corruption, and
The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military an increasing number of abusive elements in what are otherwise
version as propounded by the chief investigator, respondent Gen. Olivas, that noble institutions in our country-the military and law enforcement
Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired assassin, stating that "the evidence shows [to agencies. We are, however, convinced that, by and large, the
the contrary] that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations." They were in great majority of the officers and men of these institutions have
agreement that "only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Aquino could have shot remained decent and honorable, dedicated to their noble mission
him;" that Galman, the military's "fall guy" was "not the assassin of Sen. Aquino and in the service of our country and people.
that "the SWAT troopers who gunned down Galman and the soldiers who escorted
The tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time confirmed our
Sen. Aquino down the service stairs, deliberately and in conspiracy with one
worst fears of what unchecked evil would be capable of doing. As
another, gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged shooting by Galman of
former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban observes. "Nobody who
Sen. Aquino and the mowing down, in turn, of Galman himself;" in short, that
has great authority can be trusted not to go beyond its proper
Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy, not a communist
limits." Social apathy, passivity and indifference and neglect have
plot The only difference between the two reports is that the majority report found
spawned in secret a dark force that is bent on destroying the
all the twenty-six private respondents abovenamed in the title of the case headed
values held sacred by freedom-loving people.
by then AFP Chief General Fabian C. Ver involved in the military conspiracy and
therefore "indictable for the premeditated killing of Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. To assert our proper place in the civilized world, it is imperative
and Rolando Galman at the MIA on August 21, 1983;" while the chairman's minority that public officials should regard public service as a reflection of
report would exclude nineteen of them and limit as plotters "the six persons who human Ideals in which the highest sense of moral values and
were on the service stairs while Senator Aquino was descending" and "General integrity are strictly required.
Luther Custodio . . . because the criminal plot could not have been planned and A tragedy like that which happened on August 21, 1983, and the
implemented without his intervention." crisis that followed, would have normally caused the resignation
 of the Chief of the Armed Forces in a country where public office outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid citizens of the community,
is viewed with highest esteem and respect and where the moral filed the present action alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan
responsibilities of public officials transcend all other committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of
considerations. justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the
sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that the
It is equally the fact that the then President through all his recorded public acts and
Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert
statements from the beginning disdained and rejected his own Board's above
genuine and earnest efforts to present vital and important testimonial and
findings and insisted on the military version of Galman being Ninoy's assassin. In
documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandiganbayan Justices
upholding this view that "there is no involvement of anyone in his government in
were biased, prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused, and that their acts
the assassination," he told David Briscoe (then AP Manila Bureau Chief in a Radio-TV
"clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth
interview on September 9, 1983 that "I am convinced that if any member of my
about the Aquino assassination." Petitioners prayed for the immediate issuance of a
government were involved, I would have known somehow ... Even at a fairly low
temporary restraining order restraining the respondent Sandiganbayan from
level, I would have known. I know how they think. I know what they are thinking
rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases which it had
of." 7​​ He told CBS in another interview in May, 1984 (as his Fact Finding Board was
scheduled on November 20, 1985 and that judgment be rendered declaring a
holding its hearings) the following:
mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a
CBS: But indeed there has been recent evidence ​ -a
re-trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor. 10​
that seems to contradict earlier reports, namely,
At the hearing on November 18, 1985 of petitioners' prayer for issuance of a
the recent evidence seems to indicate that some
temporary restraining order enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision
of the guards may have been responsible (for
in the two criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11​ ​ to
shooting Ninoy).
issue the restraining order prayed for. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day
MARCOS: Well, you are of course wrong. What period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent
you have been reading are the newspapers and Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for
the newspaper reports have been biased. The the prosecution as filed in the Sandiganbayan, the signature page of
evidence still proves that Galman was the killer. which ​alone​ had been submitted to the Court as Annex 5 of his comment.
The evidence also shows that there were
But ten days later on November 28, 1985, the Court by the same nine-to- two-vote
intelligence reports connecting the communist
ratio in reverse, ​12​ resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the temporary
party to the killing. ​8
restraining order issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from
In his reply of October 25, 1984 to General Ver's letter of the same date going on rendering its decision.​13​ The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a
leave of absence upon release of the Board's majority report implicating him, he new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum
wrote that "(W)e are even more aware, general, that the circumstances under for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them and which they
which the board has chosen to implicate you in its findings are fraught with doubt alleged was "very material to the question of his partiality, bias and prejudice"
and great contradictions of opinion and testimony. And we are deeply disturbed within which to file a consolidated reply thereto and to respondents' separate
that on the basis of so-called evidence, you have been so accused by some comments, by an eight-to-three vote, with Justice Gutierrez joining the
members of the Board," and extended "My very best wishes to you and your family ​
dissenters. 14
for a speedy resolution of your case," 9​​ even as he announced that he would return
On November 29, 1985, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that
the general to his position as AFP Chief "if he is acquitted by the Sandiganbayan." In
the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the
an interview on June 4, 1985 with the Gamma Photo Agency, as respondent court
case be set for a full hearing on the merits because if the charge of partiality and
was hearing the cases, he was quoted as saying that "as will probably be shown,
bias against the respondents and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution
those witnesses (against the accused) are perjured witnesses." 10 ​
are proven, the petitioners would be entitled to the reliefs demanded: The People
It was against this setting that on November 11, 1985 petitioners Saturnina Galman are entitled to due process which requires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased
and Reynaldo Galman, mother and son, respectively, of the late Rolando Galman, prosecutor. If the State is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict
and twenty-nine (29) other petitioners, composed of three former Justices of this because certain material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and the
Court, five incumbent and former university presidents, a former AFP Chief of Staff, tribunal is not impartial, then the entire proceedings would be null and void.
Petitioners prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained from promulgating their his trust as Tanodbayan (Ombudsman)." New Tanodbayan Raul M. Gonzales in his
decision as scheduled anew on December 2, 1985. comment of April 14, 1986 "interposed no objection to the reopening of the trial of
the cases . . . as, in fact, he urged that the said cases be reopened in order that
On December 5, 1985, the Court required the respondents to comment on the
justice could take its course."
motion for reconsideration but issued no restraining order. Thus, on December 2,
1985, as scheduled, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the Respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective
accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent and totally absolving them comment of April 9, 1986 stated that the trial of the criminal cases by them was
of any civil liability. This marked another unusual first in that respondent valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence presented and the law
Sandiganbayan in effect convicted the very victim Rolando Galman (who was not on applicable, but manifested that "if it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the
trial) as the assassin of Ninoy contrary to the very information and evidence Deputy Tanodbayan, Chief of the Prosecution Panel, were pressured into
submitted by the prosecution. In opposition, respondents submitted that with the suppressing vital evidence which would probably alter the result of the trial,
Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had become moot and Answering Respondents would not interpose any objection to the reopening of
academic. On February 4, 1986, the same Court majority denied petitioners' motion those cases, if only to allow justice to take its course." Respondent Sandiganbayan
for reconsideration for lack of merit, with the writer and Justice Abad Santos Justice Bienvenido C. Vera Cruz, in a separate comment, asserted that he passed no
maintaining our dissent. note to anyone; the note being bandied about is not in his handwriting; he had
nothing to do with the writing of the note or of any note of any kind intended for
On March 20, 1986, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for
any lawyer of the defense or even of the prosecution; and requested for an
reconsideration attached therewith. The thrust of the second motion for
investigation by this Court to settle the note passing issue once and for all.
reconsideration was the startling and theretofore unknown revelations of Deputy
Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as reported in the March 6, 1986 issue of the Manila Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment of April 14, 1986 affirmed the
Times entitled "Aquino Trial a Sham," that the then President had ordered the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the
respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to
prosecution panel headed by Herrera to whitewash the criminal cases against the whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. He amplified his revelations, as
26 respondents accused and produce a verdict of acquittal. follows:
On April 3, 1986, the Court granted the motion to admit the second motion for 1. ​AB INITIO​, A. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL!
​
reconsideration and ordered the respondents to comment thereon. 15
Incidents during the preliminary investigation showed ominous
Respondent Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez stated in his Manifestation filed on signs that the fate of the criminal case on the death of Ex-Senator
April 11, 1986 that he had ceased to hold office as Tanodbayan as of April 8, 1986 Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman on August 21, 1983 was
when he was replaced by the new Tanodbayan, Raul M. Gonzales, but reiterating doomed to an ignominous end. Malacanang wanted dismissal-to
his position in his comment on the petition, he added "relative to the reported the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the
alleged revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, herein Investigating Panel (composed of the undersigned, Fiscals Ernesto
respondent ​never succumbed​ to any alleged attempts to influence his actuations in Bernabe and Leonardo Tamayo) for signature. This, of course, was
the premises, ​having instead successfully resisted perceived attempts to exert resisted by the panel, and a resolution charging all the
pressure to drop the case after preliminary investigation​, and actually ordered the respondents as principals was forwarded to the Tanodbayan on
filing and prosecution of the two (2) murder cases below against herein private January 10, 1985.
party respondents." He candidly admitted also in his memorandum: "There is not
2. MALACAÑANG CONFERENCE PLANNED SCENARIO OF TRIAL
much that need be said about the existence of pressure. That there were pressures
can hardly be denied; in fact, it has never been denied." 15​ ​ -a He submitted that At 6:00 p.m. of said date (January 10) Mr. Ferdinand E. Marcos
"even as he vehemently denies insinuations of any direct or indirect complicity or (the former President) summoned to Malacañang Justice
participation in any alleged attempt to supposedly whitewash the cases below, . . . Bernardo Fernandez (the Tanodbayan), Sandiganbayan Justice
should this Honorable Court find sufficient cause to justify the reopening and retrial Manuel Pamaran (the Presiding Justice) and an the members of
of the cases below, he would welcome such development so that any wrong that the Panel
had been caused may be righted and so that, at the very least the actuations of Also present at the meeting were Justice Manuel Lazaro (the
herein respondent in the premises may be reviewed and reexamined, confident as Coordinator) and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, who left earlier, came
he is that the end will show that he had done nothing in the premises that violated
back and left again. The former President had a copy of the Towards the end of the two-hour meeting and after the script had
panel's signed resolution (charging all accused as principals), been tacitly mapped out, the former President uttered: "Mag
evidently furnished him in advance, and with prepared notes on moro-moro na lang kayo."
the contents thereof.
The parting words of the former President were: "Thank you for
The former President started by vehemently maintaining that your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate."
Galman shot Aquino at the tarmac. Albeit initially the undersigned
While still in the palace grounds on the way out, the undersigned
argued against the theory, to remain silent was the more discreet
manifested his desire to the Tanodbayan to resign from the panel,
posture when the former President became emotional (he was
or even the office. This, as well as other moves to this effect, had
quite sick then).
always been refused. Hoping that with sufficient evidence
During a good part of the conference, the former President talked sincerely and efficiently presented by the prosecution, all involves
about Aquino and the communists, lambasting the Agrava Board, in the trial would be conscience-pricked and realize the futility
specially the Legal Panel. Shifting to the military he rumbled on and injustice of proceeding in accordance with the script, the
such statements as: "It will be bloody . . . Gen. Ramos, though undersigned opted to say on.
close to me, is getting ambitious and poor Johnny does not know
Herrera further added details on the "implementation of the script," such as the
what to do". . . 'our understanding with Gen. Ramos is that his
holding of a "make-believe raffle" within 18 minutes of the filing of the Informations
stint is only temporary, but he is becoming ambitious "the boys
with the Sandiganbayan at noon of January 23, 1985, while there were no members
were frantic when they heard that they will be charged in court,
of the media; the installation of TV monitors directly beamed to Malacanang; the
and wig be detained at city jail."
installation of a "war room" occupied by the military; attempts to direct and stifle
From outright dismissal, the sentiment veered towards a more witnesses for the prosecution; the suppression of the evidence that could be given
pragmatic approach. The former President more or less conceded by U.S. Airforce men about the "scrambling" of Ninoy's plane; the suppression of
that for political and legal reasons all the respondents should be rebuttal witnesses and the bias and partiality of the Sandiganbayan; its cavalier
charged in court, Politically, as it will become evident that the disregard of his plea that it "should not decide these cases on the merits without
government was serious in pursuing the case towards its logical first making a final ruling on the Motion for Inhibition;" and the Presiding Justice's
conclusion, and thereby ease public demonstrations; on the other over-kill with the declaration that "the Court finds all accused innocent of the
hand, legally, it was perceived that after (not IF) they are crimes charged in the two informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal
acquitted, double jeopardy would inure. The former President nor civil liability," adding that "in the almost twenty years that the undersigned has
ordered then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the been the prosecutor in the sala of the Presiding Justice this is the only occasion
participation of each respondent. where civil liability is pronounced in a decision of acquittal. " He "associated himself
with the motion for reconsideration and likewise prayed that the proceedings in the
In the matter of custody of the accused ​pendente lite ​the
Sandiganbayan and its decision be declared null and void."
Coordinator was ordered to get in touch with Gen. Narciso
Cabrera, Gen. Vicente Eduardo and Director Jolly Bugarin to put New Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez' comment of April 25, 1986 submitted that a
on record that they had no place in their respective institutions. declaration of mistrial will depend on the veracity of the evidence supportive of
The existence of PD No. 1950 (giving custody to commanding petitioners' claim of suppression of evidence and collusion. He submitted that this
officers of members of AFP charged in court) was never would require reception of evidence by a Court-appointed or designated
mentioned. commissioner or body of commissioners (as was done in G.R. No. 71316, F​ r.
Romano case​; and G.R. No. 61016, ​Morales​ case; and G.R. No. 70054, ​Banco
It was decided that the presiding justice (First Division) would
Filipino​ case); and that if petitioners' claim were substantiated, a reopening of the
personally handle the trial, and assurance was made by him that it
double murder case is proper to avoid a miscarriage of justice since the verdict of
would be finished in four to six months, pointing out that, with
acquittal would no longer be a valid basis for a double jeopardy claim.
the recent effectivity of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
trial could be expedited. Respondents-accused opposed the second motion for reconsideration and prayed
for its denial. Respondent Olivas contended that the proper step for the
government was to file a direct action to annul the judgment of acquittal and at a Investigating Panel and disputed the findings of the Agrava Board
regular trial present its evidence of collusion and pressures. that it was not Galman who shot Benigno Aquino.
As a whole, all the other respondents raised the issue of double jeopardy, and 4. Later in the conference, however, President Marcos was
invoked that the issues had become moot and academic because of the rendition of convinced of the advisability of filing the murder charge in court
the Sandiganbayan's judgment of acquittal of all respondents- accused on so that, after being acquitted as planned, the accused may no
December 2, 1985, with counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas, as well as Olivas, longer be prosecuted in view of the doctrine of double jeopardy.
further arguing that assuming that the judgment of acquittal is void for any reason,
5. Presumably in order to be assured that not all of the accused
the remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment where the burden of proof falls
would be denied bail during the trial, considering that they would
upon the plaintiff to establish by clear, competent and convincing evidence the
be charged with capital offenses, President Marcos directed that
cause of the nullity.
the several accused be "categorized" so that some of them would
After Petitioners had filed their consolidated reply, the Court resolved per its merely be charged as accomplices and accessories.
resolution of June 5, 1986 to appoint a three-member commission composed of
6. In addition to said directive, President Marcos ordered that the
retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado Vasquez, chairman, and retired
case be handled personally by Justice Pamaran who should
Intermediate Appellate Court Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as
dispose of it in the earliest possible time.
members, to hear and receive evidence, testimonial and documentary, of the
charges of collusion and pressures and relevant matters, upon prior notice to all 7. The instructions given in the Malacanang conference were
parties, and to submit their findings to this Court for proper disposition. The followed to the letter; and compliance therewith manifested itself
Commission conducted hearings on 19 days, starting on June 16, 1986 and ending in several specific instances in the course of the proceedings, such
on July 16, 1986, On the said last day, respondents announced in open hearing that as, the changing of the resolution of the special investigating
they decided to forego the taking of the projected deposition of former President panel, the filing of the case with the Sandiganbayan and its
Marcos, as his testimony would be merely corroborative of the testimonies of assignment to Justice Pamaran, suppression of some vital
respondents Justice Pamaran and Tanodbayan Fernandez. On July 31, 1986, it evidence, harassment of witnesses, recantation of witneses who
submitted its extensive 64-page Report 16​ ​ wherein it discussed fully the evidence gave adverse testimony before the Agrava Board, coaching of
received by it and made a recapitulation of its findings in capsulized form, as defense counsels, the hasty trial, monitoring of proceedings, and
follows: even in the very decision rendered in the case.
1. The Office of the Tanodbayan, particularly Justice Fernandez 8. That that expression of President Marcos' desire as to how he
and the Special Investigating Panel composed of Justice Herrera, wanted the Aquino-Galman case to be handled and disposed of
Fiscal Bernabe and Special Prosecutor Tamayo, was originally of constituted sufficient pressure on those involved in said task to
the view that all of the twenty-six (26) respondents named in the comply with the same in the subsequent course of the
Agrava Board majority report should all be charged as principals proceedings.
of the crime of double murder for the death of Senator Benigno 9. That while Justice Pamaran and Justice Fernandez manifested
Aquino and Rolando Galman. no revulsion against complying with the Malacañang directive,
2. When Malacanang learned of the impending filing of the said justice Herrera played his role with manifestly ambivalent
charge before the Sandiganbayan, the Special Investigating Panel feelings.
having already prepared a draft Resolution recommending such 10. Sufficient evidence has been ventilated to show a scripted and
course of action, President Marcos summoned Justice Fernandez, pre-determined manner of handling and disposing of the
the tree members of the Special Investigating Panel, and justice Aquino-Galman murder case, as stage-managed from Malacañang
Pamaran to a conference in Malacanang in the early evening of and performed by willing ​dramatis personnae​ as well as by
January 10, 1985. recalcitrant ones whipped into line by the omnipresent influence
3. In said conference, President Marcos initially expressed his of an authoritarian ruler.
disagreement with the recommendation of the Special The Commission submitted the following recommendation.
 Considering the existence of adequate credible evidence showing motive to eliminate Senator Aquino. A day or so after the
that the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices assassination, President Marcos came up with a public statement
who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his
some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist, military escorts, but by a communist hired gun. It was, therefore,
and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the
position and to offer all the evidences which it could have case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced
otherwise presented, but also predetermined the final outcome theory thereof which, at the same time, would clear his name and
of the case, the Commission is of the considered thinking and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the
belief, subject to the better opinion and judgment of this assassination.
Honorable Court that the proceedings in the said case have been
The calling of the conference was undoubtedly to accomplish this
vitiated by lack of due process, and hereby respectfully
purpose. . . .
recommends that the prayer in the petition for a declaration of a
mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 President Marcos made no bones to conceal his purpose for
entitled ​"People vs. Luther Custodia et al.,"​ be granted. calling them. From the start, he expressed irritation and
displeasure at the recommendation of the investigating panel to
The Court per its Resolution of July 31, 1986 furnished all the parties with copies of
charge all of the twenty-six (26) respondents as principals of the
the Report and required them to submit their objections thereto. It thereafter
crime of double murder. He insisted that it was Galman who shot
heard the parties and their objections at the hearing of August 26, 1986 and the
Senator Aquino, and that the findings of the Agrava Board were
matter was submitted for the Court's resolution.
not supported by evidence that could stand in court. He discussed
The Court adopts and approves the Report and its findings and holds on the basis and argued with Justice Herrera on this point. Midway in the
thereof and of the evidence received and appreciated by the Commission and duly course of the discussion, mention was made that the filing of the
supported by the facts of public record and knowledge set forth above and charge in court would at least mollify public demands and possibly
hereinafter, that the then President (code named Olympus) had stage-managed in prevent further street demonstrations. It was further pointed out
and from Malacanang Palace "a scripted and pre-determined manner of handling that such a procedure would be a better arrangement because, if
and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted,
Aquino Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and
the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall
resist', and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position appear when President Marcos is no longer in office.
and to offer all the evidences which it could have otherwise presented, but also
xxx xxx xxx
pre-determined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six
respondents accused of all criminal and civil liability. After an agreement was reached as to filing the case, instead of
dismissing it, but with some of the accused to be charged merely
The Court finds that the Commission's Report ​(incorporated herein by
as accomplices or accessories, and the question of preventive
reference) ​and findings and conclusions are duly substantiated by the evidence and
custody of the accused having thereby received satisfactory
facts of public record. Composed of distinguished members of proven integrity with
solution, President Marcos took up the matter of who would try
a combined total of 141 years of experience in the practice of law (55 years) and in
the case and how long it would take to be finished.
the prosecutoral and judicial services (86 years in the trial and appellate courts),
​ the Commission properly appraised the
experts at sifting the chaff from the grain, 17​ According to Justice Herrera, President Marcos told Justice
evidences presented and denials made by public respondents, thus: Pamaran 'point blank' to personally handle the case. This was
denied by Justice Pamaran.​ No similar denial was voiced by Justice
The desire of President Marcos to have the Aquino-Galman case
Fernandez in the entire course of his two-day testimony.​ Justice
disposed of in a manner suitable to his purposes was quite
Pamaran explained that such order could not have been given
understandable and was but to be expected. The case had stirred
inasmuch as it was not yet certain then that the Sandiganbayan
unprecedented public outcry and wide international attention.
would try the case and, besides, cases therein are assigned by
Not invariably, the finger of suspicion pointed to those then in
raffle to a division and not to a particular Justice thereof.
power who supposedly had the means and the most compelling
It was preposterous to expect Justice Pamaran to admit having escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see
received such presidential directive. His denial, however, falls to the President. Actually, ​no public mention alas ever made of this
pieces in the light of the fact that the case was indeed handled by conference until Justice Herrera made his expose some fifteen (15)
him after being assigned to the division headed by him. A months later when the former president was no longer around.
supposition of mere coincidence is at once dispelled by the
President Marcos undoubtedly realized the importance of the
circumstance that he was the only one from the Sandiganbayan
matter he wanted to take up with the officials he asked to be
called to the Malacanang conference wherein the said directive
summoned. ​He had to do it personally​, and not merely through
was given. . . .
trusted assistants. The lack of will or determination on the part of
The giving of such directive to Justice Pamaran may also be Justice Fernandez and Justice Pamaran to resist the presidential
inferred from his admission that he gave President Marcos the summons despite their realization of its unwholesome
possible time frame when asked as to how long it would take him implications on their handling of the celebrated murder case may
to finish the case. be easily inferred from their unquestioned obedience thereto. No
effort to resist was made, despite the existence of a most valid
The​ testimony​ of Justice Herrera that, during the conference, and
reason to beg off, on the lame excuses that they went there out of
after an agreement was reached on filing the case and
"curiosity," or "out of respect to the Office of the President," or
subsequently acquitting the accused, P ​ resident Marcos told them
that it would be 'unbecoming to refuse a summons from the
"Okay, mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;"​ and that on their way
President.' Such frame of mind only reveals their susceptibility to
out of the room President Marcos expressed his thanks to the
presidential pressure and lack of capacity to resist the same. ​The
group and uttered ​"I know how to reciprocate," did not receive
very acts of being summoned to Malacanang and their ready
any denial or contradiction either on the part of justice Fernandez
acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are
or justice Pamaran. (No other person present in the conference
in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified​ Their abject
was presented by the respondents. Despite an earlier
deference to President Marcos may likewise be inferred from the
manifestation​ by the respondents of their intention ​to present
admitted fact that, ​not having been given seats​during the
Fiscal Bernabe and Prosecutor Tamayo, such move was
two-hour conference (Justice Fernandez said it was not that long,
abandoned without any reason having been given therefor.)
but did not say how long) in which President Marcos did the
The facts set forth above are all supported by the evidence on talking most of the time, they listened to him on their feet. Verily,
record. In the mind of the Commission, the only conclusion that it can be said that ​any avowal of independent action or resistance
may be drawn therefrom is that pressure from Malacanang had to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment
indeed been made to bear on both the court and the prosecution they stepped inside Malacanang Palace on January 10, 1985.​ ​18
in the handling and disposition of the Aquino-Galman case. ​The
The Commission pinpointed the crucial factual issue thus: "the more significant
intensity of this pressure is readily deductible from the personality
inquiry is on whether the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Tanodbayan actually
of the one who exerted it, his moral and official ascendancy over
succumbed to such pressure, as may be gauged by their subsequent actuations in
those to whom his instructions were directed, the motivation
their respective handling of the case." It duly concluded that "the pressure exerted
behind such instructions, and the nature of the government
by President Marcos in the conference held on January 10, 1985 ​pervaded the
prevailing at that time which enabled, the then head of state to
entire proceedings ​of the Aquino Galman [murder] cases" as manifested in several
exercise authoritarian powers​. That the conference called ​to script
specific incidents and instances it enumerated in the Report under the heading of
or stage-manage the prosecution and trial​ of the Aquino-Galman
"Manifestations of Pressure and Manipulation."
case was considered ​as something anomalous that should be kept
away from the public eye is shown by the effort to assure its Suffice it to give hereinbelow brief excerpts:—
secrecy.​None but those directly involved were caned to attend.
1. The changing of the original Herrera panel draft Resolution charging all the
The meeting was held in an inner room of the Palace. Only the
twenty-six accused as principals by conspiracy by categorizing and charging 17 as
First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with
principals, Generals Ver and Olivas and 6 others as accessories and the civilian as
the President. The conferees were told to ​take the back door ​in
accomplice, and recommending bail for the latter two categories: "The
going to the room where the meeting was held, presumably to
categorization may not be completely justified by saying that, in the mind of Justice
Fernandez, there was no sufficient evidence to justify that all of the accused be prepared by an official of the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, was inaccurate and did
charged as principals. The majority of the Agrava Board found the existence of not correctly reflect the testimony he gave "although there was no clear showing of
conspiracy and recommended that all of the accused be charged accordingly. the discrepancy from the original transcription which was in Nippongo. Upon his
Without going into the merit of such finding, it may hardly be disputed that, in case arrival at the MIA on August 21, 1985 on invitation of Justice Herrera to testify at
of doubt, and in accordance with the standard practice of the prosecution to charge the ongoing trial, "a shot was fired and a soldier was seen running away by media
accused with the most serious possible offense or in the highest category so as to men who sought to protect Wakamiya from harm by surrounding him." Wakamiya
prevent an incurable injustice in the event that the evidence presented in the trial was forced by immigration officials to leave the country by Saturday (August 24th)
will show his guilt of the graver charge, the most logical and practical course of notwithstanding Herrera's request to let him stay until he could testify the following
action should have been, as originally recommended by the Herrera panel, to Monday (August 26th). In the case of principal eyewitness Rebecca Quijano, the
charge all the accused as principals. As it turned out, Justice Fernandez readily Commission reported that
opted for categorization which, not surprisingly, was in consonance with the
... Undoubtedly in view of the considerable significance of her
Malacañang instruction." It is too much to attribute to coincidence that such
proposed testimony and its unfavorable effect on the cause of the
unusual categorization came only after the then President's instruction at
defense, the efforts exerted to suppress the same was as much as,
Malacanang when Gen. Ver's counsel, Atty. Coronel, had been asking the same of
if not more than those in the case of Wakamiya. ... She recounted
Tanodbayan Fernandez since November, 1984; and "Justice Fernandez himself,
that she was in constant fear of her life, having been hunted by
admit(ted) that, as of that time, [the Malacanang conference on January 10, 1985],
armed men; that their house in Tabaco, Albay was ransacked, her
his own view was in conformity with that of the Special Investigating Panel to
family harassed by the foreclosure of the mortgage on their house
charge all of the twenty-six (26) respondents as principals of the crime of double
by the local Rural Bank, and ejected therefrom when she ignored
​ As the Commission further noted, "Justice Fernandez never denied the
murder." 19​
the request of its manager to talk with her about her proposed
claim of Justice Herrera that the draft resolution of January 10, 1985 (Exhibit 'B-1')
testimony; that a certain William Fariñas offered her plane tickets
[charging all 26 accused as principals] was to have been the subject of a press
for a trip abroad; that Mayor Rudy Fariñas of Laoag City kept on
conference on the afternoon of said date which did not go through due to the
calling her sister in the United States to warn her not to testify;
summons for them to go to Malacanang in the early evening of said date."​20
that, later, Rudy and William Fariñas offered her two million pesos
2. ​Suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses:" ​Realizing, no doubt, supposedly coming from Bongbong Marcos, a house and lot in
that a party's case is as strong as the evidence it can present, unmistakable and Baguio, the dropping of her estafa case in Hongkong, and the
persistent efforts were exerted in behalf of the accused to weaken the case of the punishment of the persons responsible for the death of her
prosecution and thereby assure and justify [the accused's] eventual scripted father, if she would refrain from testifying.
acquittal. Unfavorable evidences were sought to be suppressed, and some were
It is a matter of record, however, that despite such cajolery and
indeed prevented from being ventilated. Adverse witnesses were harassed, cajoled,
harassments, or perhaps because of them, Ms. Quijano eventually
perjured or threatened either to refrain from testifying or to testify in a manner
testified before the Sandiganbayan. Justice Herrera was told by
favorable to the defense."
justice Fernandez of the displeasure expressed by Olympus at
The Report specified the ordeals of the prosecution witnesses:​21​ ​Cesar Loterina​, PAL justice Herrera's going out of his way to make Ms. Quijano to
employee, ​Roberta Masibay,​ Galman's step-daughter who recanted their testify, and for his refusal to honor the invitation to attend the
testimonies before the Fact Finding Board and had to be discarded as prosecution birthday party of the First Lady on May 1, 1985, as on the eve of
witnesses before at the trial. Witnesses ​Viesca​ and ​Rañas​ who also testified before Ms. Quijano's testimony on May 2, 1985. The insiduous attempts
the Board "disappeared all of a sudden and could not be located by the police. The to tamper with her testimony, however, did not end with her
Commission narrated the efforts to stifle ​Kiyoshi Wakamiya​ eyewitness who taking the witness stand. In the course of her testimony several
accompanied Ninoy on his fateful flight on August 21, 1983 and described them as notes were passed to Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez, the defense counsel
"palpable, if crude and display(ing) sheer abuse of power." Wakamiya was not even who cross-examined her, one of which suggested that she be
allowed to return to Manila on August 20, 1984 to participate in the first death asked more questions about Dean Narvasa who was suspected of
anniversary of Ninoy but was deported as an undesirable alien and had to leave on having coached her as to what to declare (Exhibit "D"); and on
the next plane for Tokyo. The Board had to go to Tokyo to hear Wakamiya give his another occasion, at a crucial point in her testimony, a power
testimony before the Japanese police in accordance with their law and Wakamiya brownout occurred; which lasted for about twenty minutes,
claimed before the Commission that the English transcription of his testimony, as throwing the courtroom into darkness, and making most of those
 present to scamper for safety, and Ms. Quijano to pass over the posture ... is, in the least, indicative that he was living up to the instruction of
railing of the rostrum so as to be able to leave the courtroom. It finishing the trial of the case as soon as possible, if not of something else."
was verified that the brownout was limited to the building
6. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran: "Justice Herrera
housing the Sandiganbayan, it not having affected the nearby
testified that President Marcos ordered Justice Pamaran point-blank to handle the
Manila City Hall and the Finance Building. Justice Herrera declared
case. The pro-forma denial by Justice Pamaran of such instruction crumbles under
that the main switchboard of the Sandiganbayan electrical system
the actuality of such directive having been complied with to the letter. ...
was located beside the room occupied by Malacañang people
who were keeping track of the proceedings. "Justice Pamaran sought to discredit the claim that he was ordered by President
Marcos to handle the case personally by explaining that cases in the Sandiganbayan
Atty. Lupino Lazaro for petitioners further made of record at that August 26th
are assigned by raffle and not to a particular Justice, but to a division thereof. The
hearing that the two Olivas sisters, Ana and Catherine (hospitality girls) disappeared
evidence before the Comission on how the case happened to be assigned to Justice
on September 4, 1984, two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. And the informant,
Pamaran evinces a strong indication that such assignment was not done fairly or
by the name of Evelyn (also a hospitality girl) who jotted down the number of the
regularly.
car that took them away, also disappeared. On January 29, 1984, during the
proceedings of the Board, Lina Galman, the common-law wife of Rolando Galman, "There was no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular
was kidnapped together with a neighbor named Rogelio Taruc, They have been raffle, except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran. ... ​Despite an
missing since then, despite his attempts to find any of them. According to him, announcement that Justice Escareal would be presented b ​ y the respondents to
"nobody was looking for these five persons because they said Marcos was in Power testify on the contents of his aforesaid Memorandum, ​such was not done. No
[despite his appeal to the Minister of National Defense to locate them]. Today, still reason was given why Justice Escarel could not, or would not like to testify. Neither
no one is looking for these people." And he appealed to the new leadership for its was any one of the officials or employees of the Sandiganbayan w ​ ho, according to
assistance in learning their fate. Justice Pamaran, were present during the supposed raffle, presented to
corroborate the claim of Justice
3. ​The discarding of the affidavits executed by U.S. airmen​ "While it is true that the
U.S. airmen's proposed testimonies would show an attempt of the Philippine Air xxx xxx xxx
Force to divert the plane to Basa Airfield or some other place, such showing would "It is also an admitted fact that the two Informations in the double murder case
not necessarily contravene the theory of the prosecution, nor the actual fact that were filed by Justice Herrera on January 23, 1985, at 12:02 p.m., and the members
Senator Aquino was killed at the Manila International Airport. Justice Herrera had of the Raffle Committee were summoned at 12:20 p.m. or o ​ nly 18 minutes after the
accurately pointed out that such attempt of scrambling Aquino's plane filing of the two Informations​. Such speed in the actual assignment of the case can
merely ​showed a 'wider range of conspiracy,​' it being possibly just one of two or truly be categorized as unusual, if not extraordinary, considering that before a case
three other plans designed to accomplish the same purpose of liquidating Senator filed may be included in the raffle, there is need for a certain amount of paper work
Aquino. In any event, even assuming that the said piece of evidence could go either to be undertaken. If such preliminary requirements were done in this case within
way, it may not be successfully contended that it was prudent or wise on the part of the limited time available therefor, the charge that the raffle was rushed to avoid
the prosecution to totally discard the said piece of evidence. Despite minor the presence of media people would ring with truth.
inconsistencies contained therein, its introduction could have helped the cause of
the prosecution. If it were not so, or that it would even favor the defense, as What is more intriguing is the fact that although a raffle might have been actually
averred by Justice Fernandez, the determined effort to suppress the same would conducted which resulted in the assignment of the case to the First Division of the
have been totally uncalled for." Sandiganbayan, the Commission did not receive any evidence on how or why it was
handled personally by Justice Pamaran who wrote the decision thereof, and not by
4. Nine proposed rebuttal witnesses not presented. any one of the two other members of his division. . . .
5. The failure to exhaust available remedies against adverse developments: "When 7. ​The custody of the accused their confinement in a military camp, instead of in a
the Supreme Court denied the petition of Justice Fernandez [against the exclusion civilian jail: ​"When the question of custody came up after the case was filed in the
of the testimonies given by the military respondents headed by Gen. Ver before the Sandiganbayan, the latter issued an order directing the confinement of the accused
Fact Finding Board], the latter almost immediately announced to media that he was in the City Jail of Manila. This order was not carried out in view of the information
not filing a motion for the reconsideration of said denial for the reason that it would given by the Warden of the City Jail that there was no space for the twenty-six
be futile to do so and foolhardy to expect a favorable action on the same. ... His accused in said jail. The same information was given when the custody was
proposed to be given to the National Penitentiary in Muntinglupa and to the accused on the ​standard ground that their guilt had not been proven beyond
National Bureau of Investigation. At that point, the defense came up with reasonable doubt,​ as was the most logical and appropriate way of justifying the
Presidential Decree No. 1950A which authorizes the custody of the accused military acquittal in the case, there not being a total absence of evidence that could show
personnel with their respective Commanding Officers. Justice Herrera claimed that guilt on the part of the accused. ​The decision had to pronounce them 'innocent of
the said Presidential Decree was not known even to the Tanodbayan Justice the crime ​charged on the two informations, and ​accordingly, they incur neither
Fernandez who had to call up the then Minister of Justice Estelito Mendoza to criminal nor civil liability.' It is a rare phenomenon to see a person accused of a
request a copy of the same, and was given such copy only after sometime. ..." crime to be favored with such total absolution. ...
8. ​The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Doubt on the soundness of the decision entertained by one of the two justices who
Malacañang personnel: ​"There is an ​uncontradicted evidence​ that the progress of concurred with the majority decision penned by Justice Pamaran was ​revealed by
the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan as well as the developments of the case Justice Herrera​ who testified that ​in October, 1985, ​when the decision was being
outside the Court had been monitored by Malacañang presumably for it to know prepared, ​Justice Agusto Amores told him that he was of the view that some of the
what was happening and to take remedial measures as may be necessary. Justice accused should be convicted​ he having found difficulty in acquitting all of them;
Pamaran had candidly admitted that television cameras "boldly carrying the label of however,​ he confided to Justice Herrera that Justice Pamaran made it clear to him
'Office of the President of the Philippines' " were installed in the courtroom for that and Justice Vera Cruz that Malacañang had instructions to acquit all of the
purpose. There was a room in the Sandiganbayan, mischievously caned 'war room', twenty-six accused​ (TSN, July 17, 1986, p. 49).​ Justice Amores also told Justice
wherein military and Malacañang personnel stayed to keep track of the Herrera that he would confirm this statement​ (which was mentioned in Justice
proceedings." the ​close monitoring​ by Malacañang showed its results on several Herrera's comment to the Second Motion for Reconsideration) ​if asked about
occasions specified in the Report. ​Malacañang was immediately aware of the it​ (TSN, June 19, 1986, pp. 92-93). ​This testimony Justice Herrera remained
Japanese witness Wakamiya's presence injustice Herrera's office ​on August 21, 1985 unrebutted ​" (Emphasis supplied)
and forestalled the giving of his testimony by having the Japanese Embassy advise
The record shows suffocatingly that from beginning to end, the then President
Wakamiya to leave the country at once. Likewise, ​Col. Balbino Diego, Malacañang
used, or more precisely, misused the overwhelming resources of the government
intelligence chief, suddenly appeared ​at the National Bureau of Investigation office
and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process
when the "crying lady" ​Rebecca Quijano​ was brought there by NBI agents for
in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. As graphically depicted in the
interrogation and therein sought to obtain custody of her. "It is likewise an
Report, ​supra, a​ nd borne out by the happenings (​res ipsa loquitur22​ ​ ) since the
undisputed fact," the Commission noted "that ​several military personnel pretended
resolution prepared by his "Coordinator," Manuel Lazaro, his Presidential Assistant
to be deputy sheriffs of the Sandiganbayan and attended the trials thereof in the
on Legal Affairs, for the Tanodbayan's dismissal of the cases against all accused was
prescribed deputy sheriffs' uniforms."​ The Commission's inescapable finding. " It
unpalatable (it would summon the demonstrators back to the streets 23​ ​ ) and at any
is ​abundantly clear that President Marcos did not only give instructions as to how
rate was not acceptable to the Herrera prosecution panel, the unholy scenario for
the case should be handled He saw to it that he would know if his instructions will be
acquittal of all 26 accused after the rigged trial as ordered at the Malacanang
complied with."
conference, would accomplish the two principal objectives of satisfaction of the
9. Partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: "That President Marcos had public clamor for the suspected killers to be charged in court and of giving them
wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. The ​
through their acquittal the legal shield of double jeopardy. 24
disposal of the case in said manner is an integral part of the scenario which was
Indeed, ​the secret Malacanang conference ​at which the authoritarian President
cleverly designed to accomplish two principal objectives, seemingly conflicting in
called together the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan
themselves, but favorable both to then administration and to the accused; to wit,
Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel headed by Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera
[1] the satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected killers of Senator Aquino
and told them how to handle and rig ​(moro-moro) ​the trial and the close monitoring
to be charged in court, and [2] the foreclosure of any possibility that they may again
of the entire proceedings to assure the pre-determined ignominious final outcome
be prosecuted for the same offense in the event that President Marcos shall no
are ​without parallel and precedent​ in our annals and jurisprudence. To borrow a
longer be in power.
phrase from Ninoy's April 14, 1975 letter withdrawing his petition for habeas
"In rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the ​ "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our Penal Code
corpus, 25​
presidential directive.​ Its ​bias and partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly penalizes "any ​executive officer​ who shall address any ​order or suggestion ​to any
obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive
disregarded. ​... It was deemed not sufficient to simply acquit all of the twenty-six
 ​ His obsession for "the boys' " acquittal led to
jurisdiction of the courts of justice." 26​ became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Malacanang Palace on
several ​first​ which would otherwise be inexplicable:— January 10, 1985."
1. He turned his back on and repudiated the findings of the very Fact Finding Board No court whose Presiding Justice has received "orders or suggestions" from the very
that he himself appointed to investigate the "national tragedy and national shame" President who by an amendatory decree (disclosed only at the hearing of oral
of the "treacherous and vicious assassination of Ninoy Aquino and "to ventilate the arguments on November 8, 1984 on a petition challenging the referral of the
truth through free, independent and dispassionate investigation by prestigious and Aquino-Galman murder cases to the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan instead of to a
free investigators." court martial, as mandatory required by the known P.D. 1850 at the time providing
for exclusive jurisdiction of courts martial over criminal offenses committed by
2. He cordially received the chairman with her minority report one day ahead of the
military men 26​​ -a) made it possible to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be
four majority members and instantly referred it to respondents "for final resolution
an impartial court, which is the very essence of due process of law. As the writer
through the legal system" as if it were the majority and controlling report; and
then wrote, "jurisdiction over cases should be determined by law, and not
rebuked the four majority members when they presented to him the next day their
by ​preselection​ of the Executive, which could be much too easily transformed into a
report calling for the indictment of all 26 respondents headed by Gens. Ver and
means of ​predetermining​ the outcome of individual cases. 26​ ​ -b "This criminal
Olivas (instead of the lesser seven under the chairman's minority report).
collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the
3. From the day after the Aquino assassination to the dictated verdict of acquittal, secret Malacanang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice
he totally disregarded the Board's majority and minority findings of fact and publicly Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ​ab
insisted that the military's "fall guy" Rolando Galman was the killer of Ninoy Aquino initio​ its verdict. This renders moot and irrelevant for now the extensive arguments
and sought futilely to justify the soldiers' incompetence and gross negligence to of respondents accused, particularly Generals Ver and Olivas and those categorized
provide any security for Ninoy in contrast to their alacrity in gunning down the as accessories, that there has been no evidence or witness suppressed against
alleged assassin Galman and searing his lips. them, that the erroneous conclusions of Olivas as police investigator do not make
4. The Sandiganbayan's decision (Pamaran, J. ​ponente​) in effect convicted Rolando him an accessory of the crimes he investigated and the appraisal and evaluation of
Galman as Ninoy's assassin notwithstanding that he was not on trial but the victim the testimonies of the witnesses presented and suppressed. There will be time and
according to the very information filed, and evidence to the contrary submitted, by opportunity to present all these arguments and considerations at the remand and
the Herrera prosecution panel; and retrial of the cases herein ordered before a neutral and impartial court.

5. Justice Pamaran's ​ponencia​ (despite reservations expressed by Justice Amores The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of
who wanted to convict some of the accused) granted all 26 accused total absolution justice to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of
and pronounced them "innocent of the crimes charged in the two informations, and law ​and ​justice ​and ​equity. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed
accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability," notwithstanding the to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and
evidence on the basis of which the Fact Finding Board had unanimously declared suppress the truth, instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn
the soldiers' version of Galman being Aquino's killer a "​perjured​ story, given and committed to render impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or
deliberately and in conspiracy with one another." protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor
and removed from the pressures of politics and prejudice. More so, in the case at
The fact of the secret Malacañang conference of January 10, 1985 at which the bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth, and the
authoritarian President discussed with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan integrity of our judicial system is at stake. In life, as an accused before the military
and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent filing of the criminal tribunal, Ninoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he was entitled to due process
charges against all the twenty-six accused (as admitted by respondent Justice of law and trial in the regular civil courts before an impartial court with an unbiased
Fernandez to have been confirmed by him to the then President's "Coordinator" prosecutor. In death, Ninoy, as the victim of the "treacherous and vicious
Manuel Lazaro on the preceding day) is not denied. It is without precedent. This assassination" and the relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved parties plead
was illegal under our penal laws,​ supra.​ This illegality vitiated from the very once more for due process of law and a retrial before an impartial court with an
beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court headed by the very Presiding unbiased prosecutor. The Court is constrained to declare the sham trial a mock trial
Justice who attended. As the Commission noted: "The very acts of being summoned the non-trial of the century-and that the pre-determined judgment of acquittal was
to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then unlawful and void ​ab initio.
obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. ... Verily, it can
be said that any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure
1. ​No double jeopardy​.-It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the pre-determined
against this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of dismissal or final outcome of acquittal and total absolution as innocent of an the
acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal respondents-accused. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera which
cases is denied due process. As the Court stressed in the 1985 case of ​People vs. saw him near the end "deactivating" himself from the case, as it was his belief that
Bocar,​ 27
​ its eventual resolution was already a foregone conclusion, they could not cope with
the misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian President to
Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to
weaken the case of the prosecution, to suppress its evidence, harass, intimidate
prosecute and prove its case its right to due process is thereby
and threaten its witnesses, secure their recantation or prevent them from
violated.​ 27-a
testifying. Fully aware of the prosecution's difficulties in locating witnesses and
The cardinal precept is that​ where there is a violation of basic overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to appear and testify, respondent
constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.​ Thus, Sandiganbayan maintained a "dizzying tempo" of the proceedings and announced
the violation of the State's right to due process raises a serious its intention to terminate the proceedings in about 6 months time or less than a
jurisdictional issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of year, pursuant to the scripted scenario. The prosecution complained of "the
Prisons, L-30026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]which cannot be Presiding Justice's seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and their being the
glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the subject of warnings, reprimand and contempt proceedings as compared to the nil
fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered situation for the defense. Herrera likewise complained of being "cajoled into
in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen producing witnesses and pressed on making assurances that if given a certain
vs. Flores, L-30370 [May 25, 1973], 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. period, they will be able to produce their witnesses Herrera pleaded for "a
Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA 416 [Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or reasonable period of preparation of its evidence" and cited other pending cases
decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be before respondent court that were pending trial for a much longer time where the
regarded as a "lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw "dizzying tempo" and "fast pace" were not maintained by the court. 28​ ​ Manifestly,
and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head" the prosecution and the sovereign people were denied due process of law with a
(Aducayen vs. Flores, ​supra)​ . partial court and biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring
Respondent Judge's dismissal order dated July 7, 1967 being null and pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to assure the carrying out of his
and void for lack of jurisdiction, the same does not constitute a instructions. A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the
proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino vs. case at bar is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It
Zosa, ​supra​). neither binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is "a lawless thing which can be
treated as an outlaw". It is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the
xxx xxx xxx people. To paraphrase Brandeis: ​29​ If the authoritarian head of the government
Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) becomes the law-breaker, he breeds contempt for the law, he invites every man to
before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea become a law unto himself, he invites anarchy.
having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise Respondents-accused's contention that the Sandiganbayan judgment of acquittal
terminated without the express consent of the accused (People ends the case which cannot be appealed or re-opened, without being put in double
vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851). ​The lower court was not competent as it jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Court in P ​ eople vs. Court of Appeals​,
was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the which is fully applicable here, as follows: "That is the general rule and presupposes
prosecution to due process. a valid judgment. As earlier pointed out, however, respondent Courts' Resolution of
In effect the first jeopardy was never terminated,​ and the remand acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No
of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no
lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first judgment at all By it no rights are divested. Through it, no rights can be attained.
jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. Being worthless, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither
binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it
More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the cases at are void.
bar where as we have held, the sham trial was but a mock trial where the
authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig |lang1033 xxx xxx xxx
"Private respondent invoke 'justice for the innocent'. For justice to prevail the scales result in a verdict of acquittal, leaving the offended party without any remedy nor
must balance. It is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of the appeal in view of the double jeopardy rule, not to mention the overiding and
society, which they have wronged must also be equally considered. A judgment of transcendental public interest that would make out a case of denial of due process
conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal neither to the People if the alleged failure on the part of the Tanodbayan to present the
necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the society complete evidence for the prosecution is substantiated. 34​
offended, it could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role.
In this case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their
They render justice where justice is due.​30
petition and lifting of the temporary restraining order enjoining the Sandiganbayan
2. ​Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved Ahead.-​The private from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had
prosecutors had filed a motion to disqualify and for inhibition of respondents required the respondents', including the Sandiganbayan's, comments. Although no
Justices of the Sandiganbayan on grounds of manifest bias and partiality to the restraining order was issued anew, respondent Sandiganbayan should not have
defense and arising from then Atty. (now Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzales' charge precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the
that Justice Vera-Cruz had been passing coaching notes to defense counsel. Justice ​ , Wherein the
final action of this Court. This is the teaching of ​Valdez vs. Aquilizan35​
Herrera had joined the motion and pleaded at the hearing of June 25, 1985 and in court in setting aside the hasty convictions, ruled that "prudence dictated that
the prosecution memorandum that respondent Sandiganbayan "should not decide (respondent judge) refrain from deciding the cases or at the very least to hold in
the case on the merits without first making a final ruling on the Motion for abeyance the promulgation of his decision pending action by this Court. But
Inhibition." Herrera quoted the exchange between him and the Presiding Justice to prudence gave way to imprudence; the respondent judge acted precipitately by
show the latter's "following the script of Malacanang. deciding the cases [hastily without awaiting this Court's action]. All of the acts of
the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to
PJ PAMARAN
lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner."
Well the court believes that we should proceed
3. ​Re: Objections of respondents.-​The other related objections of respondents'
with the trial and then deal later on with
counsels must be rejected in the face of the Court's declaration that the trial was a
that. ​After all, the most important thing here is,
mock trial and that the pre-determined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and
shall we say, the decision of the case.
void ​ab initio.
J. HERRERA
(a) It follows that there is no need to resort to a direct action to annul the
I think ​more important​ than the decision of the judgment, instead of the present action which was timely filed initially to declare a
case, Your Honor, ​is the capacity of the justices mistrial and to enjoin the rendition of the void judgment. And after the hasty
to sit in judgment. ​That is more important than rendition of such judgment for the declaration of its nullity, following the
anything else.(p. 13 TSN, June 25, 1985) presentation of competent proof heard by the Commission and the Court's findings
(Emphasis supplied by Herrera). ​31 therefrom that the proceedings were from the beginning vitiated not only by lack of
But the Sandiganbayan brushed aside Herrera's pleas and then wrongly blamed due process but also by the collusion between the public respondents (court and
him, in the decision, for supposedly not having joined the petition for inhibition, Tanodbayan) for the rendition of a pre-determined verdict of acquitting all the
contrary to the facts above-stated, as follows: twenty-six respondents-accused.

... the motion for inhibition above referred to related exclusively (b) It is manifest that this does not involve a case of mere irregularities in the
for the contempt proceeding. Too, it must be remembered that conduct of the proceedings or errors of judgment which do not affect the integrity
the prosecution neither joined that petition, nor did it at any time or validity of the judgment or verdict.
manifest a desire to file a similar motion prior to the submission (c) The contention of one of defense counsel that the State and the sovereign
of these cases for decision. To do it now is not alone out of season people are not entitled to due process is clearly erroneous and contrary to the basic
but is also a confession of official insouciance (Page 22, principles and jurisprudence cited hereinabove.
Decision). ​32
(d) The submittal of respondents-accused that they had not exerted the pressure
The action for prohibition was filed in the Court to seek the disqualification of applied by the authoritarian president on public respondents and that no evidence
respondents Justices pursuant to the procedure recognized by the Court in the 1969
case of ​Paredes vs. Gopengco​ 33​
​ since an adverse ruling by respondent court might
was suppressed against them must be held to be untenable in the wake of the evil Supreme Court. With this Court's judgment today declaring the nullity of the
plot now exposed for their preordained wholesale exoneration. questioned judgment or acquittal and directing a new trial, there must be a
rejection of the temptation of becoming instruments of injustice as vigorously as we
(e) Respondents' invocation of the writer's opinion in ​Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs.
rejected becoming its victims. The end of one form of injustice should not become
Maritime Bldg. Co., Inc.​ 36​
​ is inappropriate. The writer therein held that a party
simply the beginning of another. This simply means that the respondents accused
should be entitled to only one Supreme Court and may not speculate on vital
must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court
changes in the Court's membership for review of his lost case once more, since
with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. What the past regime had denied
public policy and sound practice demand that litigation be put to an end and no
the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham trial must now be assured as
second ​pro forma​ motion for reconsideration reiterating the same arguments
much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties. The people will assuredly have a
should be kept pending so long (for over six (6) years and one (1) month since the
way of knowing when justice has prevailed as well as when it has failed.
denial of the first motion for reconsideration), This opinion cannot be properly
invoked, because here, petitioners' second motion for reconsideration was filed The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to public office
promptly on March 20, 1986 following the denial under date of February 4th of the owe their primary allegiance to the appointing authority and are accountable to
first motion for reconsideration and the same was admitted per the Court's him alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be discarded. The
Resolution of April 3, 1986 and is now being resolved within five months of its filing function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people, under our
after the Commission had received the evidence of the parties who were heard by system of government, is to fill the public posts. While the appointee may
the Court only last August 26th. The second motion for reconsideration is based on acknowledge with gratitude the opportunity thus given of rendering public service,
an entirely new material ground which was not known at the time of the denial of the appointing authority becomes f​ unctus officio ​and the primary loyalty of the
the petition and filing of the first motion for reconsideration, i.e, the secret appointed must be rendered to the Constitution and the sovereign people in
Malacañang conference on January 10, 1985 which came to light only fifteen accordance with his sacred oath of office. To paraphrase the late Chief Justice Earl
months later in March, 1986 and showed beyond per adventure (as proved in the Warren of the United States Supreme Court, the Justices and judges must ever
Commission hearings) the merits of the petition and that the authoritarian realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve
president had dictated and pre-determined the final outcome of acquittal. Hence, only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office, guided
the ten members of the Court (without any new appointees) unanimously voted to only, the Constitution and their own conscience and honor.
admit the second motion for reconsideration.​37
5. ​Note of Commendation​.- The Court expresses its appreciation with thanks for the
4. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must now be tried invaluable services rendered by the Commission composed of retired Supreme
before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor.-There has been the long Court Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, chairman, and retired Court of Appeals Justices
dark night of authoritarian regime, since the fake ambush in September, 1972 of Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members. In the pure spirit of public
then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile (as now admitted by Enrile himself was service, they rendered selflessly and without remuneration thorough competent
staged to trigger the imposition of martial law and authoritarian one-man rule, with and dedicated service in discharging their tasks of hearing and receiving the
the padlocking of Congress and the abolition of the office of the Vice-President. evidence, evaluating the same and submitting their Report and findings to the Court
within the scheduled period and greatly easing the Court's burden.
As recently retired Senior Justice Vicente Abad Santos recalled in his valedictory to
the new members of the Bar last May, "In the past few years, the judiciary was ACCORDINGLY, petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted. The
under heavy attack by an extremely powerful executive. During this state of judicial resolutions of November 28, 1985 dismissing the petition and of February 4, 1986
siege, lawyers both in and outside the judiciary perceptively surrendered to the denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu
animus of technicality. In the end, morality was overwhelmed by technicality, so thereof, judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent
that the latter emerged ugly and naked in its true manifestation." Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and
10011 entitled "​ People of the Philippines vs. Gen. Luther Custodia et al."​ and
Now that the light is emerging, the Supreme Court faces the task of restoring public
ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate
faith and confidence in the courts. The Supreme Court enjoys neither the power of
dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process, so that the
the sword nor of the purse. Its strength lies mainly in public confidence, based on
truth may be finally known and justice done to an
the truth and moral force of its judgments. This has been built on its cherished
traditions of objectivity and impartiallity integrity and fairness and unswerving This resolution is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.
loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law which compels acceptance as well by
Yap, Cruz, Paras and Feliciano, JJ., concur.
the leadership as by the people. The lower courts draw their bearings from the
Feria, **** Fernan and Narvasa , ***** JJ., took no part.