Galman vs Pamaran 1985

This case is about the fact finding board created for the purpose of investigating and finding the culprit of
the killing of Senator Benigno S. Aquino and a certain Reynaldo Galman whom lay dead near the body of
the former.

P.D. 1886 was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board known as the Agrava Board. The Board
conducted public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified and/or produced
documentary and other evidence either in obedience to a subpoena or in response to an invitation issued
by the Board. Among the witnesses who appeared, testified and produced evidence before the Board
were the herein private respondents General Fabian C. Ver, Major General Prospero Olivas, 3 Sgt. Pablo
Martinez, Sgt. Tomas Fernandez, Sgt. Leonardo Mojica, Sgt. Pepito Torio, Sgt. Prospero Bona and AIC
Aniceto Acupido. 4

Two reports were submitted to President Marcos: one for Ninoy, and the other for Galman. It was
forwarded to TANODBAYAN and two informations for murder were submitted to the Sandiganbayan.

Upon arraignment, all the accused, including the herein private Respondents pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Respondent SANDIGANBAYAN ordered the TANODBAYAN and the private respondents to submit their
respective memorandum on the issue after which said motions will be considered submitted for
resolution. 10

On June 3, 1985, the prosecution made a written "Formal Offer of Evidence" which includes, among
others, the testimonies of private respondents and other evidences produced by them before the Board,
all of which have been previously marked in the course of the trial.12

All the private respondents objected to the prosecutions formal offer of evidence on the same ground
relied upon by them in their respective motion for exclusion.

SANDIGANBAYAN issued a Resolution admitting all the evidences offered by the prosecution except the
testimonies and/or other evidence produced by the private respondents in view of the immunity granted
by P.D. 1886. 13

The crux of the instant controversy is the admissibility in evidence of the testimonies given by the eight
(8) private respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board.

It is the submission of the prosecution, now represented by the petitioner TANODBAYAN, that said
testimonies are admissible against the private respondents, respectively, because of the latter's failure to
invoke before the Agrava Board the immunity granted by P.D. 1886.

The private respondents, on the other hand, claim that notwithstanding failure to set up the privilege
against self- incrimination before the Agrava Board, said evidences cannot be used against them as
mandated by Section 5 of the said P.D. 1886.
Issue:

WON the petitioners can invoke their right against self-incrimination and make their testimonies
inadmissible in court considering that the venue where they provided such testimony is through the
AGRAVA Board; considering further that they were not informed by the said board of their right not to be
compelled witness against themselves.

Ruling:

Yes. Petitioners may invoke their right against self-incrimination. The Court cited their ruling in
Cabal vs Kapunan that when Cabal refused to take the stand, to be sworn and to testify upon being called
as a witness for complainant Col. Maristela in a forfeiture of illegally acquired assets, this Court sustained
Cabal's plea that for him to be compelled to testify will be in violation of his right against self-
incrimination. Clearly then, it is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings
that controls. The privilege has consistently been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law and
to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a party or not. If in a
mere forfeiture case where only property rights were involved, "the right not to be compelled to be a
witness against himself" is secured in favor of the defendant, then with more reason it cannot be denied
to a person facing investigation before a Fact Finding Board where his life and liberty, by reason of the
statements to be given by him, hang on the balance.