Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Galman v. Pamaran

    Uploaded by

    Riann Bilbao
    1. Galman v. Pamaran examined whether testimonies before the Agrava Fact-Finding Board investigating the killings of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman could be used against individuals in a subsequent criminal trial. 2. The court held that the testimonies were not admissible because the individuals were compelled to testify under threat of contempt before the Board and were not informed of their right against self-incrimination. 3. This violated the individuals' constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Due Process Clause and Philippines' exclusionary rule, which bars compelled confessions and admissions from being used in court.

    Copyright:

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

    Galman v. Pamaran

    Uploaded by

    Riann Bilbao
    88 views2 pages
    1. Galman v. Pamaran examined whether testimonies before the Agrava Fact-Finding Board investigating the killings of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman could be used against individuals in a subsequent criminal trial. 2. The court held that the testimonies were not admissible because the individuals were compelled to testify under threat of contempt before the Board and were not informed of their right against self-incrimination. 3. This violated the individuals' constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Due Process Clause and Philippines' exclusionary rule, which bars compelled confessions and admissions from being used in court.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Galman v. Pamaran examined whether testimonies before the Agrava Fact-Finding Board investigating the killings of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman could be used against individuals in a subsequent criminal trial. 2. The court held that the testimonies were not admissible because the individuals were compelled to testify under threat of contempt before the Board and were not informed of their right against self-incrimination. 3. This violated the individuals' constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Due Process Clause and Philippines' exclusionary rule, which bars compelled confessions and admissions from being used in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    88 views2 pages

    Galman v. Pamaran

    Uploaded by

    Riann Bilbao
    1. Galman v. Pamaran examined whether testimonies before the Agrava Fact-Finding Board investigating the killings of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman could be used against individuals in a subsequent criminal trial. 2. The court held that the testimonies were not admissible because the individuals were compelled to testify under threat of contempt before the Board and were not informed of their right against self-incrimination. 3. This violated the individuals' constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Due Process Clause and Philippines' exclusionary rule, which bars compelled confessions and admissions from being used in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1. Galman v.

    Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)

    Doctrine: Any interpretation of a statute which will give it a meaning in conflict with the Constitution must be avoided.
    So much so that if two or more constructions or interpretations could possibly be resorted to, then that one which will
    avoid unconstitutionality must be adopted even though it may be necessary for this purpose to disregard the more
    usual and apparent import of the language used.

    Facts:
    P.D. 1886 was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board known as the Agrava Board, to determine the facts
    and circumstances surrounding the killing of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman, and to allow a free, unlimited and
    exhaustive investigation of all aspects of the tragedy.

    Galman Theory - that it was Rolando Galman who killed Senator Aquino, who was also found dead of gunshot wounds
    on the same day Ninoy Aquino was killed
    Saturnina Galman – mother of Rolando Galman

    Pursuant to P.D. 1886, the Board conducted public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified and/or
    produced documentary and other evidence either in obedience to a subpoena or in response to an invitation issued
    by the Board.    Upon termination of the investigation, two (2) reports of the Agrava Board were turned over to the
    TANODBAYAN for appropriate action. After conducting the necessary preliminary investigation, the TANODBAYAN filed
    with the SANDIGANBAYAN two (2) Informations for MURDER—one for the killing of Ninoy Aquino, and another for the
    killing of Rolando Galman. In both criminal cases, private respondents were charged as accessories, along with several
    principals, and one accomplice.

    In the course of the joint trial of the said two cases, the prosecution offered as part of its evidence, the individual
    testimonies of private respondents before the Agrava Board. Private respondents filed a “Motion to Exclude (their)
    Testimonies before the Agrava Board” as Evidence against them in the said criminal cases. They contended that its
    admission will be in derogation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and violative of the immunity
    granted by P.D. 1886.

    PD 1886 SEC. 5. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from
    producing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in obedience to
    a subpoena issued by the Board on the ground that his testimony or the evidence
    required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but
    his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in
    connection with any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after
    having invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
    except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and
    punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt from demotion
    or removal from office.

    Petitioner TANODBAYAN opposed said motions contending that the immunity relied upon by the private respondents
    was not available to them because they failed to invoke their right against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board.

    Respondent SANDIGANBAYAN excluded the testimonies and/or other evidence produced by the private respondents
    in view of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886 but admitted all the evidence offered by the prosecution. Petitioners
    filed an MR which was DENIED. Petitioners went to the SC by way of Certiorari.

    Issue: WON private respondents’ testimonies before the Agrava Board are admissible as evidence against private
    respondents.

    Held:
    NO – Testimonies of the private respondents before the Agrava Board are not admissible in evidence in the criminal
    cases against them. In this case, P.D. No. 1886 denied them the right to remain silent. They were compelled to testify
    or be witnesses against themselves. Sec. 5 of P.D. 1886 leave them no choice. They have to take the witness stand,
    testify or produce evidence, under pain of contempt if they failed or refused to do so. Private respondents were not
    informed of their rights to remain silent nor were they warned that any and all statements to be given by them may
    be used against them. This, they were denied, under the pretense that they are not entitled to it and that the Board
    has no obligation to so inform them.

    The manner in which the testimonies were taken from private respondents fall short of the constitutional standards
    both under the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE and under the EXCLUSIONARY RULE in Section 20, Article IV (“No person shall
    be compelled to be a witness against himself xxx Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
    inadmissible in evidence”). Exclusionary rule also applies to admissions. Private respondents testified, they did not
    voluntarily waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their
    right to remain silent.

    You might also like