PALOMERA, JOSHUA CARL L.

CONSTI2 - 1D

CH 18. SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE

B. IMMUNITY STATUTES

(8) MAPA, JR. V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Petitioners Mapa, Jr. and Vergara together with other officers of PNB, National Investment and
Development Corp. and/or Pantranco North Express Inc (all GOCCs) were charged (Case No.
11960) with of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) for conspiring
with accused Gregorio Araneta III, son-in-law of former Pres. Marcos with:

(1) The sale of a major portion of the utility assets of PNEI to the North Express Transport,
Inc. which Araneta knew to be a newly organized paper corp;
(2) Through misleading, inducing and/or unduly influencing the Board of Directors of PNB,
NIDC and PNEI into approving a Memorandum of Agreement and later a Purchase
Agreement with manifestly and grossly disadvantageous terms and conditions; and
(3) That made possible the premature delivery of said PNEI assets to NETI and thereby
giving accused Gregorio Ma. Araneta III unwarranted benefits, advantages and/or
preferences and causing undue injury to the damage and prejudice of the Government in
the amount of 400M.

However Mapa was granted immunity from suit by the PCGG related to the previous
charges against him, provided that he will testify as witness against the Marcoses in
criminal proceedings in the United States Vs Ferdinand Marcos, due to violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act by transporting to the US the
investment of money through offshore organizations, where Ferdinand Marcos and his wife,
Imelda Marcos, were being tried for charges of corruption.

All the expenses of Mapa were shouldered by the PCCG when they flew to New York to testify
against the Marcoses. However, despite their availability, the US prosecutors decided not
to call them to the witness stand. Ferdinand Marcos died and La Bella, the American
prosecutor dispensed the testimony of Mapa and thereby acquitted Imelda Marcos.

Since Mapa, was not able to testify, it was contended that the immunity from suit of Mapa
took without force and effect. However, the record shows that the petitioners provided
information to the PCGG relating to the prosecution of the RICO cases against the Marcoses in
New York. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the immunity given by the PCGG to Mapa is still in effect and
force.
HELD: Yes. Under Sec. 5, EO 14, the PCGG has the separate power to grant immunity to
any person from being prosecuted provided they will meet the conditions provided by
the PCGG.

The failure of petitioners to testify in the RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York can not
nullify their immunity. They have satisfied the requirements both of the law and the parties'
implementing agreements. Their duty was to give information to the prosecution, and
they did. They promised to make themselves available as witnesses in the said RICO cases,
and they did. Petitioners were ready to testify but they were not called to testify by the US
prosecutors of the RICO case. Their failure to testify was not of their own making. It was
brought about by the decision of the US prosecutors who may have thought that their evidence
was enough to convict the Marcoses. Since petitioners' failure to testify was not of their own
choosing nor was it due to any fault of their own, justice and equity forbid that they be
penalized by the withdrawal of their immunity.

There was nothing irregular when PCGG granted a section 5 immunity to petitioners
while they were already undergoing trial in the criminal case in violation of R.A. 3019, as
amended, does not prohibit the PCGG from granting immunity to persons already
charged in court and undergoing trial. As long as the privilege of immunity so given will in the
judgment of the PCGG assist it in attaining its greater objectives, the PCGG is well within legal
grounds to exercise this power at any stage of the proceedings.

Lastly, the Court rejected the respondent court's ruling that the grant of section 5 immunity must
be strictly construed against the petitioners. It simplistically characterized the grant as special
privilege, as if it was gifted by the government, ex gratia. In taking this posture, it misread the
raison d'etre and the long pedigree of the right against self-incrimination vis-a-vis
immunity statutes.

Wherefore, the petitioner must be acquitted on the basis of the immunity granted by the PCGG,
which under the law has the power to grant immunity.

TWO KINDS OF IMMUNITY:

1. Transactional Immunity

By its grant, the witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out of
the act or transaction.

2. Used-and-Derivative-Use

A witness is only assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence derived from it will
not be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution.