GALMAN  v.  SANDIGANBAYAN   G.R.  No.  72670  

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.  

De Mesa, Athena Christa D.G. CASE # 6