USA College of Law

Alparaque 1-F
Case Name Seng Kee & Co.Mapa vs. Sandiganbayan
Topic Police PowerRight against self-incrimination
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 34976 |October 21, 1931100295 April 26, 1994
Ponente J. Puno
Doctrine Immunity granted by the state Test of Valid Ordinance

FACTS
 Petitioner was charged with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
 However, he was granted an immunity from suit by the PCGG related to the previous charges against him,
provided that he will testify as witness against the Marcoses in criminal proceedings in the United States Vs
Ferdinand Marcos, during the RICO, where Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, Imelda Marcos were being tried
for charges of corruption.
 All the expenses of Mapa were shouldered by the PCCG when they flew  to New York to testify against the
Marcoses.
 During the trial, Ferdinand Marcos died and La Bella, the American prosecutor dispensed the testimony of
Mapa and thereby acquitted Imelda Marcos.
 Since Mapa, was not able to testify, it was contended that the immunity from suit of Mapa took without
force and effect.
 However, the record shows that the petitioners provided information to the PCGG relating to the
prosecution of the RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON the immunity given by the PCGG to Mapa is still in effect and force.
RULING:
Yes, it is still valid.
 Under Sec. 5, EO 14, the PCGG has the separate power to grant immunity to any person from being prosecuted
provided they will meet the conditions provided by the PCGG. In the case at bar, Mapa was granted immunity
from the prosecution or criminal case where he is being tried, and the PCGG even shouldered all the expenses of
Mapa when they flew to New York to testify implying that Mapa was able to meet the conditions and the PCGG
accepted the information given by him (MAPA) to testify against the Marcoses during the RICO trial. Failure of the
petitioner to testify on the RICO can not nullify the immunity given to him by the PCGG since the petitioner was
able to satisfy the requirements both of the law and the parties’ implementing agreements. Though the
petitioners were not able to testify against the Marcoses in RICO, it can be said that it not their own fault.
Wherefore, the petitioner must be acquitted on the basis of the immunity granted by the PCGG, which under the
law has the power to grant immunity.

DECISION
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the resolutions of the respondent court dated March 7, and June 3, 1991 are annulled and set
aside and the Amended Information against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 11960 is ordered dismissed. No
costs.

NOTES:
Wherefore, the petitioner must be acquitted on the basis of the immunity granted by the PCGG, which under the
law has the power to grant immunity.
TWO KINDS OF IMMUNITY CAN BE GRANTED:
1.    Transactional Immunity - is broader aint he scope of its protection. By its grant the witness can no longer be
prosecuted for any offence whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction.
2.    Used-and-derivative-use - a witnessed is only assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence derived
from it will not be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution.