Scribd
Upload
71 views2 pages

Marcos VS Sandiganbayan

Imelda Marcos was charged with graft and corruption related to a 1984 transaction while she was a government officer. The initial three judge panel did not reach a unanimous decision. A special five judge division was then convened but the presiding judge dissolved it before one of the new judges could provide his opinion. The Supreme Court ruled this deprived Imelda of due process and the Sandiganbayan's decision was invalid. Specifically, Imelda had a right to have her case heard by all five judges, including the two new judges who may have had a different view, but the presiding judge did not allow this to occur.

Uploaded by

Sherimar Bongdoen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views2 pages

Marcos VS Sandiganbayan

Imelda Marcos was charged with graft and corruption related to a 1984 transaction while she was a government officer. The initial three judge panel did not reach a unanimous decision. A special five judge division was then convened but the presiding judge dissolved it before one of the new judges could provide his opinion. The Supreme Court ruled this deprived Imelda of due process and the Sandiganbayan's decision was invalid. Specifically, Imelda had a right to have her case heard by all five judges, including the two new judges who may have had a different view, but the presiding judge did not allow this to occur.

Uploaded by

Sherimar Bongdoen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IMELDA R.

MARCOS, petitioner, 
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 124680-81, February 28, 2000

FACTS:

 Imelda was charged together with Jose Dans for Graft & Corruption for a


dubious transaction done in 1984 while they were officers transacting business
with the Light Railway Transit. The case was raffled to the 1st Division of the
Sandiganbayan. The division was headed by Justice Garchitorena with J Balajadia
and J Atienza as associate justices. No decision was reached by the division by
reason of Atienza’s dissent in favor of Imelda’s innocence. Garchitorena then
summoned a special division of the SB to include JJ Amores and Cipriano as
additional members. Amores then asked Garchitorena to be given 15 days to send
in his manifestation. On the date of Amores’ request, Garchitorena received
manifestation from J Balajadia stating that he agrees with J Rosario who further
agrees with J Atienza. Garchitorena then issued a special order to immediately
dissolve the special division and have the issue be raised to the SB en banc for it
would already be pointless to wait for Amores’ manifestation granted that a
majority has already decided on Imelda’s favor. The SB en banc ruled against
Imelda.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not due process has been observed

HELD:
 
The SC ruled that the ruling of the SB is bereft of merit as there was no
strong showing of Imelda’s guilt. The SC further emphasized that Imelda was
deprived of due process by reason of Garchitorena not waiting for Amores’
manifestation. Such procedural flaws committed by respondent Sandiganbayan are
fatal to the validity of its ”decision” convicting petitioner. Garchitorena had
already created the Special Division of five (5) justices in view of the lack of
unanimity of the three (3) justices in the First Division.  At that stage, petitioner
had a vested right to be heard by the five (5) justices, especially the new justices in
the persons of Justices Amores and del Rosario who may have a different view of
the cases against her.  At that point, Presiding Justice Garchitorena and Justice
Balajadia may change their mind and agree with the original opinion of Justice
Atienza but the turnaround cannot deprive petitioner of her vested right to the
opinion of Justices Amores and del Rosario.  It may be true that Justice del Rosario
had already expressed his opinion during an informal, unscheduled meeting in the
unnamed restaurant but as afore stated, that opinion is not the opinion
contemplated by law.  But what is more, petitioner was denied the opinion of
Justice Amores for before it could be given, Presiding Justice Garchitorena
dissolved the Special Division.

You might also like