De Leon, John Larry P.
Statutory Construction – Section 1
Section 20 of Article
IV 1973 Constitution -
Case Legal
Murder exclusionary rule
Title Basis
Sec. 4 of P.D. 1886
Sec. 5 of PD 1886
Saturnina Galman
and Reynaldo Galman
& People of the
Sandiganbayan, Petitioner/ Philippines,
Court
Supreme Court s represented by
Tanodbayan
(Ombudsman)
The Honorable
Presiding Justice
Manuel Pamaran and
Associate Justices
Agusto Amores and
Bienvenido Vera Cruz
of the
Sandiganbayan,
The Honorable
71208-09 & Responde Bernardo Fernandez,
G.R. No.
71212-13 nt/s
Tanodbayan,
GENERAL Fabian C
Ver, MAJOR GENERAL
Prospero Olivas, SGT.
Pablo Martinez, SGT.
Tomas Fernandez,
SGT. Leonardo Mojica,
SGT. Pepito Torio,
SGT. Prospero Bona
and A1C Aniceto
Acupido
Date August 30, 1985 Ponente Justice Cuevas
Decision of the Lower Courts:
The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution admitting all
Regional
the evidences offered by the prosecution excluding the
Trial
testimonies and other evidence produced by the
Court
private respondents in view of the immunity granted by
(RTC)
P.D. 1886.
Doctrine Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est
/s: optimus interpretandi - to interpret and to
harmonize laws with laws is the best method of
interpretation.
Case Summary:
The case revolves around a joint trial for the killing of Former
Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman.
1|Page
De Leon, John Larry P.
Statutory Construction – Section 1
Facts:
● A Fact Finding Board, or the Agrava Board, created by virtue of
Presidential Decree 1886, was tasked to determine the facts and
circumstances surrounding the matter. This Board conducted
public hearings and summoned various individuals, among them
were the respondents, who were high ranking military officers and
personnel, to testify and produce evidence.
● After the conclusion of the investigation, two reports were
referred and turned over to the Tanodbayan, who then filed two
informations for murder, one for each of the deceased, with the
Sandiganbayan.
● During arraignment, all accused, including the private
respondents, pleaded not guilty thereto. During the trial,
petitioner Tanodbayan, presented as part of his evidence, the
individual testimonies given by the respondents during the
investigation of the Agrava Board. The petitioners, however,
objected to admission of such evidence contending that its
admission violated their constitutional right against self-
incrimination and the immunity granted by P.D. 1886. Petitioner
Tanodbayan argued that such immunity cannot be made available
to the respondents because of their failure to invoke their right
against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board.
Issue/s: 1.) Whether or not the testimony given by the eight private
respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination
before the Agrava Board be admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the right
against self-incrimination must be invoked in order for a testimony
given by a witness to be inadmissible in evidence. Since a strict
interpretation of Sec. 5 of P.D. 1886, which states that a testimony or
any evidence produced by a witness shall be not be used against him
only after the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, is
repugnant to the exclusionary rule granted by the Constitution, which
provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself and any confession obtained in violation of this shall be
inadmissible in evidence, the Court adopted a construction of the
statute in way that would harmonize these two conflicting provisions so
as to save the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality.
2|Page
De Leon, John Larry P.
Statutory Construction – Section 1
The Court also found it reasonable that Sec. 4 of P.D. 1886, which
imposes punishment over witnesses refusing to answer when required
to do so, must be construed in a manner that would not forfeit the
immunity granted by Sec. 5 of the same law, thereby concluding that
the immunity must in fact be offered to a witness before he can be
required to answer. The Court added that this is the only interpretation
that can safeguard the constitutional rights of a testifying witness.
Ruling:
1.) No. The Supreme Court, ruling in favor of the respondents,
declared that the testimonies given by the respondents under threat of
contempt in accordance with Sec. 4 of P.D. 1886 must be deemed
immunized under Sec. 5 of the same law since it would adversely
affect their constitutional rights to remain silent and against self-
incrimination if not construed as such.
3|Page
