You are on page 1of 23

Galman vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986
Teehankee, C.J.

Timeline

Suspension of Ninoy Aquino’s
the Privilege Imprisonment
of the Writ of for almost 8
Plaza Miranda Habeas Corpus Declaration of years Heart Assassination
Bombing Martial Law Surgery

FACTS .

Agrava Commission • On October 14. Mr. Labor Leader Ernesto Herrera and Educator Amado Dizon. 1983. Businessman Dante Santos. . 1886 creating an independent Board of Inquiry called the Agrava Commission. Lawyer Luciano Salazar. • The Board was composed of Former CA Justice Corazon Agrava. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No.

Minority Report .Majority vs.

• “Both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version that Rolando Galman was an NPA- hired assassin.” . stating that the evidence shows that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations.

•GALMAN .

I would have known.” .Stance of Mr..” • “The newspapers have been biased. The evidence still proves that Galman was the killer.” • “The circumstances under which the board has chosen to implicate you are fraught with doubt and great contradictions. I would have known somehow… Even at a fairly low level. Marcos • “I am convinced that if any member of my government were involved .

Marcos treated the minority report as if it were the majority report and referred it to respondent Tanodbayan “for final resolution through the legal system” and for trial in the Sandiganbayan which was better known as the graft court.• Mr. .

1985: Galman et al. filed petition on alleging that Respondents Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice.November 11. .

1985: By nine-to-two votes (in reverse). 1985: Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting all of the accused. 1986: The Court denied petitioners’ MR for lack of merit • March 20. 1985: By nine-to-two votes. the Court resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO • November 29. the Court issued a TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision • November 28. • February 4. 1985: MR was filed by the petitioners • December 2. 1986: Court granted the 2nd MR . 1986: Petitioners filed a Motion to Admit their Second MR based on the revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera.• November 18. • April 3.

.

ISSUE .

Was there mistrial and miscarriage of justice on the part of the Sandiganbayan? .

RULING .

.

Marcos had stage-managed in and from Malacanang Palace “a scripted and pre-determined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case • “Moro-moro” / “scripted” .• Anchored on Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera’s exposé that Mr.

.

Salient points in the Decision • No double jeopardy: presupposes a valid judgment • Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead • Objections of Respondents – must be rejected in the face of the Court’s declaration that the trial was a mock trial and that the pre-determined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio. • Case must be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. .

based on the truth and moral force of its judgments. . This has been built on its cherished traditions of objectivity and impartiality integrity and fairness and unswerving loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law which compels acceptance as well by the leadership as by the people. Its strength lies mainly in public confidence. the Supreme Court faces the task of restoring public faith and confidence in the courts. The Supreme Court enjoys neither the power of the sword nor of the purse.• Now that the light is emerging.

“The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to public office owe their primary allegiance to the appointing authority and are accountable to him alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be discarded.” .

” . The people will assuredly have a way of knowing when justice has prevailed as well as when it has failed.“What the past regime had denied the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham trial must now be assured as much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties.

Thank you! .