Galman vs.

Pamaran (1985)
G.R. Nos. 71208-09 | 1985-08-30
Subject: privilege against self-incrimination

Facts:
On August 21, 1983, former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was gunned down to death inside the premises of
the Manila International Airport (MIA). The suspected gunman, Rolando Galman, was also found dead on the
airport tarmac not far from the body of Sen. Aquino. To investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding
the killing, P.D. 1886 was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board, more popularly known as the
Agrava Board. Among the witnesses who appeared, testified and produced evidence before the Board were the
private respondents General Fabian C. Ver, Major General Prospero Olivas, Sgt. Pablo Martinez, Sgt. Tomas
Fernandez, Sgt. Leonardo Mojica, Sgt. Pepito Torio, Sgt. Prospero Bona and AIC Aniceto Acupido The
Tanodbayan, after conducting preliminary investigation, filed with the Sandiganbayan two Informations for
Murder -(1) for the killing of Sen. Benigno Aquino (Criminal Case No. 10010) and (2) for the killing of
Rolando Galman (Criminal Case No. 10011). In both criminal cases, private respondents were charged as
accessories, along with several principals, and one accomplice. Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not
guilty. In the course of the joint trial, the prosecution offered as part of its evidence, the individual testimonies
of private respondents before the Agrava Board. The respondents, in a Motion to Exclude Evidence, objected
to the admission of said exhibits contending that its admission will be in derogation of their constitutional right
against self-incrimination and violative of the immunity granted by P.D. No. 1886. The Tanodbayan opposed
the motion for exclusion, contending that the immunity relied upon was not available to them because of their
failure to invoke their right against self-incrimination before the ad hoc Fact Finding Board. The
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution admitting all the evidences offered by the prosecution except the
testimonies and/or other evidence produced by the private respondents in view of the immunity granted by P.D.
1886. The crux of the instant controversy is the admissibility in evidence of the testimonies given by the eight
private respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board.

Issue: Whether or not their testimony before the Board made private respondents immune from prosecution by
virtue of their right against self-incrimination.

Held:
NO. PD 1886 grants merely immunity from use of any statement give before the Board, but not immunity from
prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or producing evidence do not render the
witness immune from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right against self-incrimination. He is
merely saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing more.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.