Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    1) An investigation into the assassination of Ninoy Aquino found that Galman was not the assassin and the 26 military respondents were indictable, but the Sandiganbayan did not consider this. 2) The prosecution was preparing murder charges against the 26 military accused but President Marcos intervened and insisted on their innocence to invoke double jeopardy later. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the previous trial violated due process and the prosecution was not given a fair chance to prove its case, so double jeopardy did not apply and a re-trial was ordered.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    109 views1 page
    1) An investigation into the assassination of Ninoy Aquino found that Galman was not the assassin and the 26 military respondents were indictable, but the Sandiganbayan did not consider this. 2) The prosecution was preparing murder charges against the 26 military accused but President Marcos intervened and insisted on their innocence to invoke double jeopardy later. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the previous trial violated due process and the prosecution was not given a fair chance to prove its case, so double jeopardy did not apply and a re-trial was ordered.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    18. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) An investigation into the assassination of Ninoy Aquino found that Galman was not the assassin and the 26 military respondents were indictable, but the Sandiganbayan did not consider this. 2) The prosecution was preparing murder charges against the 26 military accused but President Marcos intervened and insisted on their innocence to invoke double jeopardy later. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the previous trial violated due process and the prosecution was not given a fair chance to prove its case, so double jeopardy did not apply and a re-trial was ordered.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    109 views1 page

    Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    1) An investigation into the assassination of Ninoy Aquino found that Galman was not the assassin and the 26 military respondents were indictable, but the Sandiganbayan did not consider this. 2) The prosecution was preparing murder charges against the 26 military accused but President Marcos intervened and insisted on their innocence to invoke double jeopardy later. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the previous trial violated due process and the prosecution was not given a fair chance to prove its case, so double jeopardy did not apply and a re-trial was ordered.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    USA College of Law

    NAVA-1E
    Case Name Galman v Sandiganbayan
    Topic Right Against Double Jeopardy
    Case No. | Date G.R. No. 72670 September 12, 1986
    Ponente TEEHANKEE, C.J.

    RELEVANT 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: WON there was due process in the acquittal of the accused from the charges against them. .

    RULING:
     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.

    You might also like