22Above case not applicable in the instant case bec. there was no supervening event
23(kasi nga patay na si Diolito nung na-convict si Gapay for SPIRI, if it were the other way around, i.e. na-convict muna si Gapay bago namatay si Diolito, walang double jeopardy kc may supervening event na)
Order of dismissal of lower court affirmed.
2422. Galman v. SandiganbayanFacts:
25Aug. 21, 1983 – Ninoy Aquino was assassinated while inside the premises of the Mla IntlAirport.263 hours after the incident, the military investigators reported that the man who shot Aquinowas a communist-hired gunman … the latter was gunned down in turn by the military (a fewdays later, said gunman would be identified as Rolando Galman)27Marcos established a Fact Finding Board (the Agrava Board) to investigate the case28Oct 23 & 24, 1984 – after 125 days of hearing the testimonies of 194 witnesses recorded in20377 pages of transcript, the Agrava Board came up with a minority and majority report,both contending that the killing was not a communist plot but a military conspiracy.
Minority report – 6 persons who were at the service stairs as plotters, and Gen.Luther Custodio was essential to the implementation of the plan
Majority report – 26 persons headed by gen Fabian Ver, all acting in conspiracywith one another in the premeditated killing of Ninoy
Nov 11, 1985 – Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman together with 29 other petitioners,charged the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan of serioud irregularities constitutingmistrial and resulting in the miscarriage of justice for want of due process of law; theyprayed for a TRO, a nullification of the proceedings and a re-trial before an impartialtribunal by an unbiased prosecutor
Nov 18, 1985 – a 9-to-2 vote of the SB granted the TRO
Nov 28, 1985 – the same 9-to-2 ratio dismissed the petition and lifted the TRO
Nov. 29, 1985 – the petitioners filed a motion for recon based on the lack of legal ground for the dismissal
Dec 5 – all of the accused were acquitted … even though Galman was not on trial, he was,in effect, convicted as the assassin of Ninoy
Mar 6, 1986 – the Mla Times published an article entitled “Aquino Trial A Sham”, which hadfor its context the revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera that the graft courtwere convinced by Marcos to whitewash the criminal cases
June 5 – SC appointed a 3-member commission (Vasquez Commission) to hear andreceive evidence of the charges of collusion and pressure
July 31 – the Vasquez Commission submitted its report with an affirmation of the “secretmeeting” held in Malacañang, wherein Marcos ordered Justice Pamaran to handle the case(without raffling the case first) and for the entire tribunal to have all of the accused acquitted
WON a call for a re-trial of the case would be tantamount to double jeopardy
Where the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a fair trial, double jeopardy doesnot attach.
29No court whose presiding justice received “orders or suggestions” from a President whosedecree made it possible to refer a case to his court can be an impartial tribunal30Jurisdiction over cases shld be determined by law and not by the pre-selection of theExecutive, which could be too easily transformed into a means of predetermining the