This case involves a petition for a retrial of the murder case of Senator Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. The petitioners allege serious irregularities and bias in the original trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They argue the prosecution was denied due process. The Supreme Court granted the retrial, finding that legal jeopardy did not attach in the original trial because the court violated the prosecution's right to due process by failing to consider key evidence. As such, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and the first trial deemed invalid. The petitioners sought a retrial before an impartial tribunal.
This case involves a petition for a retrial of the murder case of Senator Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. The petitioners allege serious irregularities and bias in the original trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They argue the prosecution was denied due process. The Supreme Court granted the retrial, finding that legal jeopardy did not attach in the original trial because the court violated the prosecution's right to due process by failing to consider key evidence. As such, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and the first trial deemed invalid. The petitioners sought a retrial before an impartial tribunal.
This case involves a petition for a retrial of the murder case of Senator Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. The petitioners allege serious irregularities and bias in the original trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They argue the prosecution was denied due process. The Supreme Court granted the retrial, finding that legal jeopardy did not attach in the original trial because the court violated the prosecution's right to due process by failing to consider key evidence. As such, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and the first trial deemed invalid. The petitioners sought a retrial before an impartial tribunal.
This case involves a petition for a retrial of the murder case of Senator Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. The petitioners allege serious irregularities and bias in the original trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They argue the prosecution was denied due process. The Supreme Court granted the retrial, finding that legal jeopardy did not attach in the original trial because the court violated the prosecution's right to due process by failing to consider key evidence. As such, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and the first trial deemed invalid. The petitioners sought a retrial before an impartial tribunal.
September
12,
1986
TEEHANKEE,
J.
TOPIC
IN
SYLLABUS:
Double
Jeopardy
SUMMARY:
The
mother
and
son
of
Rolando
Galman,
together
with
29
other
petitioners,
filed
the
present
action
alleging
that
Tanodbayan
and
Sandiganbayan
committed
serious
irregularities
constituting
mistrial
and
resulting
in
miscarriage
of
justice
and
gross
violation
of
the
constitutional
rights
of
the
petitioners
and
the
sovereign
people
of
the
Philippines
to
due
process
of
law.
They
allege
that
the
acquittal
of
all
of
the
26
accused
in
the
murder
of
Ninoy
Aquino
and
Rolando
Galman
is
an
orchestration
of
Pres.
Marcos.
They
allege
that
the
Justices
succumbed
to
the
pressure
given
by
Malacañang
and
that
a
re-‐trial
should
be
held
before
an
impartial
tribunal
by
an
unbiased
prosecutor.
The
Court
granted
a
re-‐trail
and
said
that
double
jeopardy
does
not
attach
because
the
prosecution
that
represented
the
sovereign
people
was
denied
due
process.
Thus,
the
Sandiganbayan
was
divested
of
jurisdiction.
Legal
jeopardy
attaches
only
when:
a)
upon
a
valid
indictment
b)
before
a
competent
court
c)
after
arraignment
d)
a
valid
plea
having
been
entered
e)
the
case
was
dismissed
or
otherwise
terminated
without
the
express
consent
of
the
accused.
Since
the
court
violated
the
right
of
due
process
of
the
prosecution,
it
was
divested
of
jurisdiction
and
therefore,
the
first
jeopardy
never
attached.
HOW
THE
CASE
REACHED
THE
SC:
This
is
a
second
Motion
for
Reconsideration,
asking
the
court
for
a
re-‐trial
of
the
case
of
the
murder
of
Sen.
Aquino
and
Rolando
Galman.
TIMELINE
Nov.
11,
1985
Petitioners
filed
a
petition
for
TRO
of
the
promulgation
of
the
decision
on
the
murder
of
Aquino
and
Galman
scheduled
on
Nov.
20,
1985
Nov.
18,
1985
The
Court
granted
the
TRO
in
a
9-‐2
vote.
Nov.
20,
1985
Originally
scheduled
date
of
promulgation,
promulgation
postponed
to
Dec.
2,
1985.
Nov.
28,
1985
The
Court
reversed
the
grant
of
TRO
also
in
a
9-‐2
vote.
Lifted
the
TRO.
Nov
29,
1985
Petitioners
filed
an
MR,
alleging
that
certain
material
evidence
were
not
presented.
Dec.
1,
1985
The
Court
required
the
respondent
accused
to
comment
on
the
MR.
Nonetheless,
no
TRO
was
issued.
Dec.
2,
1985
The
Court
acquitted
all
the
26
accused.
They
were
absolved
of
all
criminal
and
civil
liability.
Feb.
4,
1985
The
Court
denied
the
MR.
Mar.
20,
1986
The
petitioners
filed
a
motion
to
admit
second
MR.
Apr.
3,
1986
The
Court
granted
to
admit
2nd
MR.
De Mesa, Athena Christa D.G. CASE # 6
FACTS:
On
August
21,
1983,
Sen,
Ninoy
Aquino,
was
shot
dead
while
alighting
from
the
tarmac
of
the
Manila
International
Airport.
On
the
same
day,
Rolando
Galman
was
killed
by
the
AFP.
The
military
version
of
the
story
was
that
the
NPA-‐hired
gunman
Galman
killed
Ninoy
Aquino,
and
this
story
was
aired
on
National
Television
as
ordered
by
Pres.
Marcos.
Many
of
the
Filipinos
did
not
buy
the
story
so
Pres.
Marcos
was
constrained
to
create
a
fact-‐ finding
commission
(the
Agrava
board)
to
investigate
the
heinous
murder
of
Sen.
Aquino.
After
125
days,
the
board
came
up
with
two
reports:
the
majority
and
the
minority
report.
Both
reports
concluded
that
Galman
could
not
have
killed
Sen.
Aquino
and
that
the
assassination
was
a
product
of
a
military
conspiracy,
not
a
communist
plot.
The
only
difference
was
that
the
majority
report
concluded
that
all
26
accused
were
indictable
for
the
murder
of
Sen.
Aquino
while
the
minority
report
limited
the
plotters
to
those
six
military
men
in
the
stairs
and
Gen.
Custodio
because
the
killing
could
not
have
been
planned
without
his
participation.
The
President
rejected
the
finding
of
his
own
board
and
insisted
on
the
military
version
of
the
story.
Pres.
Marcos
called
a
conference
in
Malacañang
and
summoned
Tanodbayan
Justice
Fernando
and
Justice
Pamaran.
He
maintained
his
position
that
Galman
shot
Aquino.
But,
he
also
said
that
the
accused
should
be
indicted
in
court
for
two
reasons:
1)
Political,
to
make
it
appear
that
the
government
is
serious
in
pursuing
this
case
and
to
pacify
demonstrations
and
2)
Legal,
so
that
AFTER
(Note
that
he
said
AFTER,
NOT
IF),
double
jeopardy
will
not
inure.
The
petitioners
in
this
case
asserted
that
the
Tanodbayan
did
not
represent
the
interest
of
the
people
when
he
failed
to
exert
genuine
and
earnest
efforts
to
present
vital
and
important
testimonial
and
documentary
evidence
for
the
prosecution
and
that
the
Sandiganbayan
Justices
were
biased,
prejudiced
and
partial
in
favor
of
the
accused,
and
that
their
acts
"clouded
with
the
gravest
doubts
the
sincerity
of
government
to
find
out
the
truth
about
the
Aquino
assassination."
Some
of
the
allegations
of
the
petitioners
to
support
the
theory
that
the
trial
was
rigged:
a. Pres.
Marcos
asked
Justice
Pamaran
to
preside
over
the
case.
b. Admission
of
Justice
Herrera
that
the
President
ordered
them
to
acquit
the
accused
c. Suppression
of
vital
evidence
and
harassment
of
witnesses
d. Discarding
of
the
evidence
provided
by
US
servicemen
e.
Non-‐presentation
of
nine
rebuttal
witnesses
f. Failure
to
exhaust
remedies
against
adverse
developments
g. The
custody
of
the
accused
their
confinement
in
a
military
camp,
instead
of
in
a
civilian
jail
h. The
monitoring
of
proceedings
and
developments
from
Malacañang
and
by
Malacañang
personnel`
i. Partiality
of
the
Sandiganbayan
evident
in
its
decision
De Mesa, Athena Christa D.G. CASE # 6
PETITIONER’S
ARGUMENT:
The
State
is
deprived
of
a
fair
opportunity
to
prosecute
and
convict
because
certain
material
evidence
is
suppressed
by
the
prosecution
and
the
tribunal
is
not
impartial,
then
the
entire
proceedings
would
be
null
and
void.
No
double
jeopardy
will
attach.
RESPONDENT’S
ARGUMENT:
It
is
moot
and
academic
as
the
Sandiganbayan
already
rendered
a
judgment
of
acquittal
and
double
jeopardy
attaches.
Assuming
arguendo
that
the
judgment
of
Sandiganbayan
is
void
for
any
reason,
the
remedy
is
a
direct
action
to
annul
the
judgment
where
the
burden
of
proof
falls
upon
the
plaintiff
to
establish
by
clear,
competent
and
convincing
evidence
the
cause
of
the
nullity.
ISSUES:
WON
Double
Jeopardy
will
attach.
–
NO.
There
was
a
mistrial
and
therefore
the
court
was
divested
of
jurisdiction.
HELD:
Prayer
for
a
re-‐trial
of
the
case
was
granted.
It
is
settled
doctrine
that
double
jeopardy
cannot
be
invoked
where
the
prosecution,
which
represents
the
sovereign
people
in
criminal
cases,
is
denied
due
process.
The
cardinal
precept
is
that
where
there
is
a
violation
of
basic
constitutional
rights,
courts
are
ousted
of
their
jurisdiction.
Thus,
the
violation
of
the
State's
right
to
due
process
raises
a
serious
jurisdictional
issue
(Gumabon
vs.
Director
of
the
Bureau
of
Prisons)
which
cannot
be
glossed
over
or
disregarded
at
will.
Where
the
denial
of
the
fundamental
right
of
due
process
is
apparent,
a
decision
rendered
in
disregard
of
that
right
is
void
for
lack
of
jurisdiction.
Legal
jeopardy
attaches
only
(a)
upon
a
valid
indictment,
(b)
before
a
competent
court,
(c)
after
arraignment,
(d)
a
valid
plea
having
been
entered;
and
(e)
the
case
was
dismissed
or
otherwise
terminated
without
the
express
consent
of
the
accused
(People
vs.
Ylagan).
The
lower
court
was
not
competent
as
it
was
ousted
of
its
jurisdiction
when
it
violated
the
right
of
the
prosecution
to
due
process.
In
effect
the
first
jeopardy
was
never
terminated,
and
the
remand
of
the
criminal
case
for
further
hearing
and/or
trial
before
the
lower
courts
amounts
merely
to
a
continuation
of
the
first
jeopardy,
and
does
not
expose
the
accused
to
a
second
jeopardy.
More
so
does
the
rule
against
the
invoking
of
double
jeopardy
hold
in
the
cases
at
bar
where
as
we
have
held,
the
sham
trial
was
but
a
mock
trial
where
the
authoritarian
president
ordered
respondents
Sandiganbayan
and
Tanodbayan
to
rig
the
trial
and
closely
monitored
the
entire
proceedings
to
assure
the
pre-‐determined
final
outcome
of
acquittal
and
total
absolution
as
innocent
of
an
the
respondents-‐accused.
Sandiganbayan’s
resolution
of
acquittal
was
a
void
judgment
for
having
been
issued
without
jurisdiction.
No
double
jeopardy
attaches,
therefore.
A
void
judgment
is,
in
legal
effect,
no
judgment
at
all.
By
it
no
rights
are
divested.
Through
it,
no
rights
can
be
attained.
Being
worthless,
all
proceedings
founded
upon
it
are
equally
worthless.
It
neither
binds
nor
bars
anyone.
All
acts
performed
under
it
and
all
claims
flowing
out
of
it
are
void.
