9. Galman v.
Pamaran, GR L-71208-09
Facts: Two informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan for the murder of
Ninoy Aquino and Rolando Galman. Private respondents filed a Motion to
Exclude their testimonies, contending that their admission would violate
their constitutional right against self-incrimination and immunity granted by
P.D. 1886. The SC ruled in the affirmative, ruling that the private
respondents' right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent and to
counsel, and right to be informed of such right were violated and they were
compelled to give testimonies, otherwise they would be held in contempt.
The testimonies are inadmissible in evidence.
Issue: Whether private respondents’ testimonies before the Agrava Board
are admissible as evidence against private respondents.
Ruling: No. Right to remain silent is not only available to a person
undergoing custodial interrogation, as there is no such qualification in our
1973 Constitution. Also, there has been no jurisprudence saying that a
person undergoing investigation (not only custodial investigation) for the
commission of an offense, if not detained, is not entitled to the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent, to counsel, and to an admonition that
any and all statements to be given by him may be used against him.
Analysis: In this case, P.D. No. 1886 denied them the right to remain silent.
They were compelled to testify or be witnesses against themselves. Sec. 5 of
P.D. 1886 leave them no choice. They have to take the witness stand, testify
or produce evidence, under pain of contempt if they failed or refused to do
so.
Conclusion: In view of the foregoing considerations and finding the instant
petitions without merit, same are dismissed. no pronouncement as to costs.
