Criminal Due Process

Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986
TEEHANKEE, C.J.:
Criminal Due Process
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.
Issue: 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.