Saturnina Galman v.

Sandigan Bayan
G.R. No. 72670 (September 12, 1986)

FACTS:

An investigating committee was created to determine the facts on the case involving
the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. It appears that majority and minority reports
showed that they are unconvinced on the participation of Galman as the assassin of
late Sen. Aquino and branded him instead as the fall guy as opposed to the military
reports.

Majority reports recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable for the

premeditated killing of Aquino and Galman which the Sandiganbayan did not give
due consideration. The office of the Tanod Bayan was originally preparing a
resolution charging the 26 military accused as principal to the crime against Aquino
but was recalled upon the intervention of President Marcos who insist on the
innocence of the accused.

Marcos however recommended the filing of murder charge and to implement the
acquittal as planned so that double jeopardy may be invoked later on. The
petitioners filed an action for miscarriage of justice against the Sandiganbayan and
gross violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners for failure to exert genuine
efforts in allowing the prosecution to present vital documentary evidence and prayed
for nullifying the bias proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial
before an impartial tribunal.

ISSUES:

Whether or not there was due process in the acquittal of the accused from the
charges against them.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was deprived of due process and fair
opportunity to prosecute and prove their case which grossly violates the due process
clause.

There could be no double jeopardy since 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, 58 Phil. 851).

The lower court that rendered the judgment of acquittal 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.
The court further contends that the previous trial was a mock trial where the
authoritarian President ordered the Sandiganbayan and Tanod Bayan to rig and
closely monitor the trial which was undertaken with due pressure to the judiciary. The
court’s decision of acquittal is one void of jurisdiction owing to its failure in observing
due process during the trial therefore the judgment was also deemed void and
double jeopardy cannot be invoked. More so the trial was one vitiated with lack of
due process on the account of collusion between the lower court and
Sandiganbayan for the rendition of a pre-determined verdict of the accused. The
denial on the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners by the court was set aside
and rendered the decision of acquittal of the accused null and void. An order for a re-
trial was granted.