Galman v. Pamaran August 30, 1985| Cueva, Jr., Jr., J. | Admissibility of Evidene! Com"etene! E#lusionary $ules under t%e 198& Constitution 'igester( Anna )i*aella +ingat •
SUMMARY: Eig%t "rivate res"ondents, %o ere initially itnesses in t%e -at -inding oard, ere %arged it% t%e murder of /inoy Auino and $olando alman. 2%e roseution mar*ed and o4ered as "art of its evidene t%e individual testimonies of "rivate res"ondents before t%e -at -inding oard. rivate res"ondents obeted to t%e admission of said e#%ibits on t%e ground t%at t%ey ere denied t%e rig%t against self6 inrimination and rig%t to due "roess. 7andiganbayan a""lied t%e E#lusionary $ule and admitted all t%e evidene o4ered by t%e "roseution e#e"t t%e testimonies andor ot%er evidene "rodued by t%e "rivate res"ondents. 2%e Court a4irmed t%e 7andiganbayans resolution and %eld t%at t%e testimo nies ere not admissible as evidene. :%en t%e "rivate res"ondents ere summoned and gave t%eir testimonies before t%e oard, t%ey ere denied t%e rig%t to remain silent. 2%ey ere om"elled to testify or be itness against t%emselves. DOCTRINE: 2%e "rivilege of t%e rig%t agai nst self6inrimination and t%e rig%t to due "roess e#tends to all "roeedings santioned by la and to all ases in %i% "unis%ment is soug%t to be visited u"on a itness, %et%er a "arty or not. FACTS: -ormer 7enator enigno 7. Auino, Jr., an o""osition stalart as gunned don to deat% %en %e returned to t%e ountry after a long6soourn abroad. As a result, ' 188; as "romulgated to reate an ad %o -at -inding oard *non as t%e
•
•
•
1 eneral -abian >er, )aor eneral ros"ero ?livas, 7gt. ablo )artine@, 7gt. 2omas -ernande@, 7gt. +eonardo )oia, 7gt. e"ito 2orio, 7gt. ros"ero ona, and AC Anieto Au"ido.
•
•
•
informations for )B$'E$ against t%e "rivate res"ondents one for t%e *illing of /inoy Auino and anot%er for t%e *illing of $olando alman, %o as found dead not far from Auinos body. 2%e roseution re"resented by t%e ?4ie of t%e 2anodbayan, mar*ed and o4ered as "art of its evidene t%e individual testimonies of "rivate res"ondents before t%e Agrava oard. rivate res"ondents obeted to t%e admission of said e#%ibits. rivate res"ondents =led a formal D)otion to E#lude 2estimonies before t%e -at -inding oard as Evidene against t%emFG ontending t%at its admission ill be in derogation of t%eir onstitutional rig%t against self6inrimination and violative of t%e immunity granted by ' 188;. 2anodbayan argues t%at t%e immunity relied u"on by t%e "rivate res"ondents as not available to t%em beause of t%eir failure to invo*e t%eir rig%t against self6inrimination before t%e Agrava oard. 7andigbayan issued a $esolution admitting all t%e evidene o4ered by t%e "roseution except the tet!m"n!e an#$"r "ther ev!#ence pr"#%ce# &' the pr!vate rep"n#ent !n v!e( ") the !mm%n!t' *rante# &' the PD +,,-.
RUING: 2%e "etition is '7)77E'. /hether the tet!m"n!e *!ven &' the , pr!vate rep"n#ent 0(h" #!# n"t !nv"1e the!r r!*ht a*a!nt el)2!ncr!m!nat!"n &e)"re the A*rava 3"ar#4 are a#m!!&le a ev!#ence5 6 NO /hether the pr!vate rep"n#ent (ere #en!e# the c"nt!t%t!"nal r!*ht a*a!nt el)2!ncr!m!nat!"n an# r!*ht t" #%e pr"ce5 2 YES roseutions argument( 2estimonies are admissible against t%e "rivate res"ondents beause of t%eir failure to invo*e before t%e Agrava oard t%e immunity granted by ' 188;. 7ine t%ey did not invo*e t%e said "rivilege, t%e immunity did not atta% and t%is amounts to a aiver. aiver. rivate res"ondents argument( /otit%standing failure to set u" t%e "rivilege against self6inrimination before t%e oard, said evidenes annot be used agai nst t%em. :it%out t%e immunity "rovided for by t%e seond lause of 7etion 5H, ' •
•
2 7EC. 5. /o "erson s%all be e#used from attending and testifying or from "roduing boo*s, reords, orres"ondene, douments, or ot%er evidene in obediene to a sub"oena issued by t%e oard on t%e ground t%at %is testimony or t%e evidene reuired of %im may tend to inriminate %im or subet %im to "enalty or forfeiture! but %is testimony or any evidene "rodued by %im s%all not be used against %im in
188;, t%e legal om"ulsion im"osed by t%e =rst lause of t%e same 7etion ould be unonstitutional for being violative of t%e itness rig%t against self6inrimination. Court( 2%e investigation of t%e Agrava oard is geared to t%e asertainment andor determination of t%e ul"rit or ul"rits, t%eir onseuent "roseution and ultimately, t%eir onvition. And as a safeguard, t%e ' guarantees Dany "erson alled to testify before t%e oard t%e rig%t to ounsel at any stage of t%e "roeedings.G :%en sus"ets are summoned and alled to testify andor "rodue evidene, t%e situation is one %ere t%e "erson testifying or "roduing evidene is undergoing investigation for t%e ommission of an o4ense and not merely in order to s%ed lig%t on t%e fats and surrounding irumstanes of t%e assassination, but more im"ortantly, to determine t%e %arater and e#tent of %is "artii"ation t%erein. :%en t%e "rivate res"ondents ere summoned and gave t%eir testimonies before t%e Agrava oard, t %ey ere denied t%e rig%t to remain silent. 2%ey ere om"elled to testify or be itness against t%emselves. 7etion 5 of ' 188; left t%em it% no %oie! t%ey %ave to ta*e t%e stand, testify or "rodue evidene, under "ain of ontem"t if t%ey failed or refused to do so. ot% t%ese onstitutional rig%ts to remain silent and not to be om"elled to be a itness against %imselfF ere rig%t aay totally forelosed by .'. 188;.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
/hether the r!*ht t" rema!n !lent ! ava!la&le "nl' t" a per"n %n#er*"!n* c%t"#!al !nterr"*at!"n5 2 NO ased on uris"rudene, it %as been ategorially delared t%at a "erson detained for t%e ommission of an o4ense undergoing investigation ha a r!*ht t" &e !n)"rme# ") h! r!*ht t" rema!n !lent7 t" c"%nel7 an# t" an a#m"n!t!"n that an' an# all tatement t" &e *!ven &' h!m ma' &e %e# a*a!nt h!m. Ioever, t%ere %as been no "ronounement in any of t%ese ases nor in any ot%er t%at a "erson similarly undergoing investigation for t%e ommission of an o4ense, if •
onnetion it% any transation, matter or t%ing onerning %i% %e is om"elled, after %aving invo*ed %is "rivilege against self6inrimination, to testify or "rodue evidene, e#e"t t%at su% individual so testifying s%all not be e#em"t from "roseution and "unis%ment for "erury ommitted in so testifying, nor s%all %e be e#em"t from demotion or removal from o4ie.
•
not detained, is not entitled to t%e onstitutional admonition mandated by said 7etion H0, Art. > of t%e ill of $ig%ts. 2%e fat t%at t%e framers of our Constitution did not %oose to use t%e term ustodial by %aving it inserted beteen t%e ords under and investigation, as in fat t%e sentene o"ens it% t%e "%rase any "erson goes to "rove t%at t%ey did not ado"t in toto t%e entire fabri of t%e )iranda dotrine. 2%e Court onludes t%at t%ey ere alled to t%e stand to determine t%eir "robable involvement in t%e rime being investigated. Ket t%ey %ave not been informed or at t%e very least even arned %ile so testifying, even at t%at "artiular stage of t%eir testimonies, of t%eir rig%t to remain silent and t%at any statement given by t%em may be used against t%em. o 2%e res"ondents ere alled to t%e itness stand not to merely eliit from t%em fats and irumstanes, %i% as already su""lied by ot%er ordinary itnesses %o %ad testi=ed earlier. 2%e reords s%o t%at enerals >er and ?livas ere among o t%e last itnesses alled by t%e Agrava oard. 2%e subet matter dealt it% and t%e line of uestioning as o s%on by t%e transri"t of t%eir testimonies before t%e Agrava oard, evined "ur"oses ot%er t%an merely eliiting and determining t%e so6alled surrounding fats and irumstanes of t%e assassination 2%e "rivilege against self6 inrimination is g uaranteed in t%e -ift% Amendment to t%e -ederal Constitution. n t%e %ili""ines, t%e same "rini"le obtains as a diret result of Amerian inLuene. o At =rst, t%e "rovision in our organi las ere similar to t%e Constitution of t%e Bnited 7tates and as as follos( D2%at no "erson s%all be ... om"elled in a riminal ase to be a itness against %imself.G o As no orded, 7etion H0 of Artile > E#lusionary $uleF reads( D/o "erson s%all be om"elled to be a itness against %imself.G 2%e deletion of t%e "%rase in a riminal ase ma*es t%e o said "rovision also a""liable to ases ot%er t%an riminal. 2%e rig%t not to be om"elled to testify against %imself a""lies to t%e "rivate res"ondents notit%standing t%at t%e "roeedings before t%e Agrava oard is not a riminal ase. Ioever, ' 188; foreloses t%e o"tion of refusal to anser uestions by im"osing santions u"on its e#erise, t%us( 7EC. M. 2%e oard may %old any "erson in diret or indiret o ontem"t, and im"ose a""ro"riate "enalties t%erefor. A "erson guilty of .... inluding ... refusal to be sorn or to
•
anser as a itness or to subsribe to an a4idavit or de"osition %en lafully reuired to do so may be summarily adudged in diret ontem"t by t%e oard. 7u% t%reat of "unis%ment for ma*ing a laim of t%e "rivilege leaves t%e itness no %oie but to anser and t%ereby forfeit t%e immunity "ur"ortedly granted by 7e. 5. As a rule, su% infringement of t%e onstitutional rig%t renders ino"erative t%e testimonial om"ulsion, meaning, t%e itness annot be om"elled to anser B/+E77 a o6e#tensive "rotetion in t%e form of ))B/2K is o4ered.
Teehan1ee7 8.7 D!ent!n* Op!n!"n: 2%e maority deision is based on erroneous "remises. t must also be noted t%at t%e "rivate res"ondents ere re"resented by ounsel and none of t%em invo*ed t%e "rivilege or rig%t against self6inrimination or made any laim or obetion at t%e time of %is testimony before t%e oard. 2%e folloing vital onsideration based on settled uris"rudene s%o t%at 7andiganbayan ated it% gross error and misone"tion of t%e "rini"les o f t%e rig%t against self6 inrimination( 1F )arella v. $eyes, uoted in CA v aylo( DNt%e rig%t to obetion is a mere "rivilege %i% t%e "arties may aive! and if t%e ground for obetion is *non and not seasonably made, t%e obetion is deemed aived and t%e OtrialP ourt %as no "oer, on its on motion, to disregard t%e evidene.G 2rial ourts s%ould be liberal in t%e matter of admission of "roof and avoid t%e "remature and "rei"itate e#lusion of evidene on doubtful obetions to its admissibility. HF An aused ou"ies a di4erent tier of "rotetion from an ordinary itness. :%ereas an ordinary itness may be om"elled to ta*e t%e itness stand and laim t%e "rivilege as ea% uestion reuiring an inriminating anser is s%ot at %im, an aused may altoget%er refuse to ta*e t%e itness stand and refuse to anser any and all uestions. on@ales v 7e. of +abor( it is establis%ed t%at t%e "rivilege against self6inrimination must be invo*ed at t%e "ro"er time, and t%e "ro"er time to invo*e it is %en a uestion alling for a inriminating anser is "ro"ounded. 2%is %as to be so, beause before a uestion is as*ed t%ere ould be no ay of telling %et%er t%e information to be eliited from t%e itness is self6inriminating or not. • •
•
•
•
3F All t%e res"ondents at bar ere in t%is ategory of ordinary itnesses in t%e %earings of t%e -at6-inding oard. 2%ey ere not aused in any riminal ase nor ere t%ey "ersons under ustodial interrogation. As ordinary itnesses before t%e -at6-inding oard and under t%e settled uris"rudene above6ited, t%ey ould not invo*e t%e rig%t to silene and refuse to ta*e t%e itness stand. 2%eir rig%t and "rivilege %i% is not self6e#eutory or automati ipso jureF as, %ile testifying, %et%er voluntarily or by sub"oena, to invo*e t%e "rivilege and refuse to a nser as and %en a uestion alling for an inriminating anser is "ro"ounded. -ailure to invo*e t%e "rivilege %i% is "ersonal does automatially result in its loss i"so fato. Certainly, %ere t%e itness, on oat% delares %is belief t%at t%e anser to t%e uestion ould riminate or tend to riminate %im, t%e ourt annot om"el %im to anser, unless it is lear "erfetly, from a areful onsideration of all t%e irumstanes of t%e ase, t%at t%e itness is mista*en, or is ating in bad fait%, and t%at t%e anser annot "ossibly %ave any su% tendeny. -raniso $evised $ules of CourtF MF 2%ere %as not been enoug% time to eig% and "onder on t%e far6rea%ing onseuenes of t%e deision at bar. 2%e deision orders t%e total and unuali=ed e#lusion of t%e testimonies and evidene "rodued before t%e -at6-inding oard by t%e eig%t res"ondents %arged as aessories even t%oug% t%eyF failed to laim t%eirF "rivilege before giving t%e inriminating testimony 5F /one of t%e res"ondents, "ubli and "rivate, %as indiated t%e s"ei= "ortions of t%eir testimony t%at t%ey %ave been o""ressively om"elled to glue, in alleged violation of t%eir "rivilege against self6inrimination. 2%e reason for t%is is t%at t%ey all testi=ed voluntarily and eagerly to su""ort t%e military re"ort and version t%at alman *illed 7enator Auino. •
•
Melenc!"29errera7 8.7 D!ent!n* Op!n!"n:
1F 7etion 5 does not reuire t%at t%e "erson testifying before t%e Agrava -at -inding oard t%e oard, for s%ortF s%all =rst invo*e t%e "rivilege against self6inrimination. Bnder said statute it is obvious t%at %e %as no su% "rivilege. t does not grant to a "erson %o %as testi=ed before t%e oard absolute or total immunity. t s%ould not o"erate as a
s%ield against riminal liability s"eially sine, under 7etion 1H of t%e same 'eree, t%e oard may initiate t%e =ling of t%e "ro"er om"laint if its =nding so arrant. HF 2%e inuiry before t%e oard as a general one. t as not direted against any "artiular individual or individuals. rivate res"ondents did not testify t%erein as sus"ets or as aused "ersons. 2%ere s%ould t%erefore be no %indrane to a riminal "roseution. 3F 2%e rig%t against self inrimination is not a "ro%ibition of inuiry but an o"tion of refusal to anser inriminating uestions Cabal v. Qa"unanF. 2%e *ernel of t%e "rivilege is testimonial om"ulsion. :%et%er or not any s"ei= "ortion of t%e testimonies of "rivate res"ondents is inriminating s%ould be determined by t%e 7andiganbayan itself. 2%e laim against self6inrimination s%ould be invo*ed %en a s"ei= uestion, %i% is inriminating in %arater, is "ut to a itness in t%e subseuent "roeeding. 2%ere s%ould be no automati immunity bat% of t%e entire testimony before t%e oard for immunity does not e#tend to su% of t%e evidene as is not "rivileged. MF 2%e issue atually addresses itself to a uestion of admissibility or om"eteny of evidene and not to its redibility. :%et%er t%e evidene so admitted is to be given any "robative eig%t or redene is best addressed to t%e 7andiganbayan. n t%e interest of eliiting t%e trut%, t%e e#luded testimonies s%ould be admitted, leaving it to t%e 7andiganbayan to determine %i% s"ei= uestions a nd ansers are to be e#luded beause t%ey are inriminatory, and %i% s%ould be given redibility, in found to be om"etent and admissible. Rel"va7 8.7 D!ent!n* Op!n!"n:
1F ursuant to t%e ', no one an refuse to testify or furnis% evidene before t%e -at -inding oard. Ioever, %is testimony or any evidene "rodued s%all not be used against %im after %e invo*ed t%e "rivilege against self6 inrimination. HF 2%e "rivilege against self6inrimination must be invo*ed %en t%e uestion at t%e %earing before t%e oard, alling for an inriminating anser is "ro"ounded! ot%erise, before any uestion is as*ed of t%e itness, %e ould not *no %et%er t%e information to be eliited from %im is inriminating or not. 3F :%en "rivate res"ondents gave testimonies before t%e oard t%ey ere not defendants but itnesses invited andor sub"oenaed to ventilate t%e trut% t%orougly free, inde"endent and dis"assionate investigation. 2%ey ould not refuse or it%%old ansers to uestions "ro"ounded to t%em unless t%e inuiry alls for an inriminating anser and a timely obetion is raised. MF n t%e ase at bar, sine t%e "rivate res"ondents ansered uestions from t%e -at -inding oard it%out laiming t%e "rivilege against self6inrimination t%ey annot no be alloed to invo*e t%e immunity lause "rovided in 7etion 5 of residential 'eree /o. 188;.