a
Galman v. Sandiganbayan (PAO) FACTS: *Summary*
September 12, 1986 | Teehankee |
PETITIONER: Galman et al. (including his wife and Bernas)
RESPONDENTS: Sandiganbayan
Summary:
On August 21, 1983, former Senator Ninoy Aquino was killed from the
plane he was riding after he has arrived in Manila. He was shot at the
back of his head. After 3 hours, the investigators reported than it was a
communist assassin who has committed the crime. After a few days, the
Government released that alleged identity to be Rolando Galman. Due to
public pressure, former President Marcos created a fact-finding board.
There were two reports (i.e. a minority report by the chairman and a
majority one). Both resolved that it wasn’t Galman who killed Aquino
and only the military men in the staircase could have shot him. The
minority report finding 19 guilty whilst the majority report finding 26
guilty.
The President insists that Galman was the killer, which led the Petitioners
to pray for issuances of a TRO which enjoined the Respondent court from
rendering a decision. The Court granted the following things (9 to 2
voting): They issued the TRO prayed for and the grant of a 5-day period
to file a reply to the Respondents’ comments. However, after 10 days the
Court (in another 9 to 2 voting) lifted the same TRO it issued and denied
the 5-day period which they should have been given upon the
Tanodbayan’s memorandum.
Thus, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the Petitioners. They
claimed that the dismissal and having no trial for the case was violative of
their right to due process. However, the Sandiganbayan still acquitted the
military men. The motion for reconsideration by the Petitioners were
denied. Thus, the case at bar.
ISSUES:
- WON The Petitioners’ right to due process was violated. YES
HELD: The Petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration should have
pushed through because this is their right under the doctrine of Due
Process. The trial must not proceed to an impartial court with a neutral
prosecutor.
Ratio:
- Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera made an expose showing that the
Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan Prosecutors were ordered
by former President Marcos to whitewash the case (specifically
the second motion for reconsideration). Basically, former
President Marcos predetermined the outcome of the trial. There
was also suspension of vital evidence and harassment of
witnesses.
- More importantly, an impartial court is the very essence of due
process. The predetermined outcome completely disqualifies
Sandiganbayan of the category of an impartial court. The
Petitioners motion for reconsideration in relation to the dismissal
of their case and the lifting of the TRO (which enjoins SB from
rendering a decision) in the absence of the comments of the
Respondents and the SB.
- There is no double jeopardy because the Respondent’s courts
judgment was void.