G.R. Nos. 71208-09 and 71212-13 August 30, 1985
SATURNINA GALMAN AND REYNALDO GALMAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE MANUEL PAMARAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES AUGUSTO AMORES AND BIENVENIDO VERA CRUZ OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL., respondents. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the TANODBAYAN (OMBUDSMAN), petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the assassination of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. on August 21, 1983. An ad hoc Fact Finding Board, known as the Agrava Board, was created under P.D. 1886 to investigate the killing. Among the witnesses who testified before the Board were the private respondents, including General Fabian C. Ver and several military personnel. Subsequently, the Tanodbayan filed two Informations for Murder with the Sandiganbayan, charging the private respondents as accessories. During the trial, the prosecution offered as evidence the testimonies given by these private respondents before the Agrava Board.
The private respondents moved to exclude their respective testimonies, invoking constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the immunity provision under Section 5 of P.D. 1886. This provision states that a person subpoenaed by the Board cannot refuse to testify but that his testimony shall not be used against him if he is compelled to testify after invoking the privilege. The Tanodbayan opposed, arguing the respondents waived the privilege by testifying without invoking it before the Board. The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution admitting all prosecution evidence except the testimonies of the private respondents, ruling they were protected by the statutory immunity.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the testimonies of the private respondents given before the Agrava Board on the ground of immunity under P.D. 1886.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petitions and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution. The Court held that the immunity under Section 5 of P.D. 1886 is not self-executing; it must be affirmatively claimed by the witness when a question calling for an incriminating answer is propounded. The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right that must be invoked at the proper time, which is when the incriminating question is asked. Prior to a question being posed, a witness cannot determine if the information sought is incriminating. Since the private respondents voluntarily answered questions before the Agrava Board without objecting or claiming the privilege, they are deemed to have waived it. They testified as witnesses, not as accused, and could not refuse answers unless they timely invoked the privilege against specific inquiries. Consequently, their testimonies, given without such invocation, are admissible as evidence against them in the criminal cases. The Sandiganbayan’s exclusion of this evidence constituted a grave abuse of discretion.