You are on page 1of 1

#15 Galman v Pamaran, GR 71208-09, 30 Aug 1985

CUEVAS, J.
MAKASIAR, C.J., concurring

FACTS: Eight private respondents, who were initially witnesses in the Fact Finding Board, were charged
with the murder of Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. The Prosecution marked and offered as part of its
evidence the individual testimonies of private respondents before the Fact Finding Board. Private
respondents objected to the admission of said exhibits on the ground that they were denied the right
against self-incrimination and right to due process. Sandiganbayan applied the Exclusionary Rule and
admitted all the evidence offered by the prosecution except the testimonies and/or other evidence
produced by the private respondents. The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayans resolution and held that
the testimonies were not admissible as evidence. When the private respondents were summoned and
gave their testimonies before the Board, they were denied the right to remain silent. They were compelled
to testify or be witness against themselves.

ISSUE: Can the accused invoke his right to double jeopardy without express consent to the dismissal of
the case?

RULING: YES. In support of the rule that there can be no implied waiver of the right against self-
incrimination and all other constitutional rights by the witness or by the accused, is the fact that the right
against double jeopardy can only be renounced by the accused if the criminal case against him is dismissed
or otherwise terminated with his express consent. Without such express consent to the dismissal or
termination of the case, the accused can always invoke his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

(NOTE: There is nothing else in the case that talks about double jeopardy)

You might also like