GALMAN VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN
[144 SCRA 43; G.R. NO.72670; 12 SEP 1986]

FACTS:

To ascertain the details of the Ninoy Aquino murder case, an investigation committee
was established. As contrary to the military assessments, it seems that the majority and minority
reports are not persuaded that Galman was the murderer of the late Sen. Aquino and have labeled
him as the scapegoat. According to the majority of sources, the 26 military respondents should
have been charged with murder for the planned killings of Aquino and Galman, which the
Sandiganbayan did not fully investigate. When President Marcos intervened and argued for the
accused's innocence, the Tanod Bayan office was drafting a resolution that would have named
the 26 military personnel charged as principals in the crime against Aquino. However, Marcos
advised bringing a murder charge and carrying through the planned acquittal so that double
jeopardy might be used afterwards. The petitioners requested the annulment of the biased
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and the ordering of a new trial before an impartial
tribunal, alleging that the Sandiganbayan had committed a miscarriage of justice and had grossly
violated the petitioners' constitutional rights by failing to make genuine efforts to permit the
prosecution to present important documentary evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was due process afforded to the accused in this case?
HELD:

NO. The prosecution was denied a fair chance to prosecute and establish their case,
according to the Supreme Court, which blatantly breaches the due process requirement. Since
legal peril only attaches (a) upon a legitimate indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after
arraignment, (d) following the entry of a valid plea, and (e) upon the dismissal or other
termination of the case without the explicit permission of the accused, there could be no double
jeopardy (People vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851). Due to the violation of the right to due process for
the prosecution, the lower court that issued the verdict of acquittal lacked competence.
Remanding the criminal case to the lower courts for further hearings and/or trials essentially
equates to a continuance of the first peril and does not subject the accused to a second one. The
court also claims that the prior trial was a sham trial that was conducted under proper pressure on
the judiciary with the dictatorial President ordering the Sandiganbayan and Tanod Bayan to rig
and carefully supervise the trial. Due to the court's disregard for due process throughout the trial,
the judgment was also declared invalid, and double jeopardy could not be used to challenge the
court's decision of acquittal. Furthermore, the trial was tainted by a breach of due process as a
result of cooperation between the lower court and Sandiganbayan to provide an accused decision
that was already predetermined. The court's rejection of the petitioners' application for
reconsideration was overturned, making the accused's acquittal judgment invalid. Retrial was
ordered, and it was carried out.