MARCOS v.

SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division)

Imelda Marcos was charged for Graft & Corruption for a dubious
transaction done in 1984 while they were officers transacting
business with the Light Railway Transit (LRT). The case was raffled to
the 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan. The division was headed by
Justice Garchitorena with Justices Balajadia and Atienza. No decision
was reached by the division by reason of Atienzas dissent in favor
of Marcos innocence. Garchitorena then summoned a special
division of the Sandiganbayan to include Justices Amores and
Cipriano as additional members. Amores then asked Garchitorena to
be given 15 days to send in his manifestation. On the date of
Amores request, Garchitorena received manifestation from
Balajadia stating that he agrees with Justice del Rosario who agrees
with Atienza. Garchitorena then issued a special order to
immediately dissolve the special division and have the issue be
raised to the Sandiganbayan en banc for it would already be
pointless to wait for Amores manifestation granted that a majority
has already decided on Marcos favor. The Sandiganbayan en banc
then ruled against Marcos.
The Supreme Court held that the ruling of the Sandiganbayan is
bereft of merit as there was no strong showing of Marcos guilt as
such it granted the motion for Reconsideration of Marcos and
subsequently acquitted her of the offense charged. The Supreme
Court further emphasized that Marcos was deprived of due process
by reason of Garchitorena not waiting for Amores manifestation.
Such procedural flaws committed by respondent Sandiganbayan are
fatal to the validity of its decision convicting petitioner. The Supreme
Court echoed that criminal justice system is not a popularity contest
where freedom and punishment are determined merely by the fame
or infamy of the litigants. The scales of justice must hang equal and,
in fact, should even be tipped in favor of the accused because of the
constitutional presumption of innocence. This right is available to
every accused, whatever his present circumstance and no matter
how dark and repellent his past culpability for crimes must always
take its bearing from evidence and universal precepts of due
process.
*Garchitorena had already created the Special Division of five (5)
justices in view of the lack of unanimity of the three (3) justices in
the First Division. At that stage, petitioner had a vested right to be
heard by the five (5) justices, especially the new justices in the
persons of Justices Amores and del Rosario who may have a
different view of the cases against her. At that point, Presiding
Justice Garchitorena and Justice Balajadia may change their mind
and agree with the original opinion of Justice Atienza but the
turnaround cannot deprive petitioner of her vested right to the
opinion of Justices Amores and del Rosario. It may be true that

Justice del Rosario had already expressed his opinion during an

informal, unscheduled meeting in the unnamed restaurant but as
aforestated, that opinion is not the opinion contemplated by law.
But what is more, petitioner was denied the opinion of Justice
Amores for before it could be given, Presiding Justice Garchitorena
dissolved the Special Division.