Scribd
Upload
322 views

Case 2: Mapa vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100295, April 26, 1994

The petitioners were granted immunity from criminal prosecution by the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCGG) in exchange for providing testimony and information against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in racketeering cases in New York. They cooperated fully by providing information to prosecutors and traveling to New York to testify, however the prosecutors ultimately did not call them to the witness stand. The petitioners argued their immunity was still valid despite not testifying, and the court agreed, finding they had satisfied the requirements of Philippine law and their agreement with the PCGG. The failure to testify was outside of their control, so the immunity granted to them remained in effect.

Uploaded by

Chugs
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
322 views

Case 2: Mapa vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100295, April 26, 1994

The petitioners were granted immunity from criminal prosecution by the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCGG) in exchange for providing testimony and information against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in racketeering cases in New York. They cooperated fully by providing information to prosecutors and traveling to New York to testify, however the prosecutors ultimately did not call them to the witness stand. The petitioners argued their immunity was still valid despite not testifying, and the court agreed, finding they had satisfied the requirements of Philippine law and their agreement with the PCGG. The failure to testify was outside of their control, so the immunity granted to them remained in effect.

Uploaded by

Chugs
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

Case 2: Mapa vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

100295, April 26, 1994

The failure of petitioners to testify in the RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York can not nullify
their immunity. They have satisfied the requirements both of the law and the parties' implementing
agreements.

Under section 5 of E.O. No. 14, as amended, their duty was to give information to the prosecution, they
did. Under their Memorandum of Agreement, they promised to make themselves available as witnesses in
the said RICO cases, they did. Their failure to testify is not in their own making.

FACTS:
Placido Mapa and Lorenzo Vergara et al. was charged with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.

Ferdinand E. Marcos and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos were charged in New York with violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) by transporting to the United States and
concealing the investment of money through cronies and offshore organizations. To insure the conviction
of the Marcoses, the prosecution solicited the testimonies of witnesses who were petitioners Placido
Mapa, Vergara et al., they were interviewed and requested to testify in the said RICO cases against the
Marcoses. They were promised immunity from further criminal prosecution (in their Anti-Graft and
Corrupt case). They agreed.

Petitioners travelled to New York to testify. Their travel fare and hotel accommodations were even
furnished by the PCGG. However, the US prosecutors decided not to call them to the witness stand. The
result was a debacle for the US prosecutors and the PCGG. Mrs. Imelda Marcos was acquitted by the
jury. Former President Marcos was delisted as an accused as he died in the course of the proceedings.

Since the petitioners were not able to testify, the Respondent Sandiganbayan contended that the immunity
from suit of the petitioners took without force and effect. However, the record shows that the petitioners
provided information to the PCGG relating to the prosecution of the RICO cases against the Marcoses in
New York.

ISSUE: Whether the immunity given by the PCGG to Mapa is still in effect and force.

RULING:
Yes. The Immunity is still in effect and force.

Under Sec. 5, EO 14, the PCGG has the separate power to grant immunity to any person from being
prosecuted provided they will meet the conditions provided by the PCGG.

Here, the petitioners was granted immunity from the prosecution or criminal case where they are being
tried, and the PCGG even shouldered all the expenses when they flew to New York to testify implying
that the petitioners was able to meet the conditions and the PCGG accepted the information given by them
to testify against the Marcoses during the RICO trial. Failure of the petitioner to testify on the RICO case
cannot nullify the immunity given to him by the PCGG since the petitioners was able to satisfy the
requirements both of the law and the parties’ implementing agreements. Though the petitioners were not
able to testify against the Marcoses in RICO, it can be said that it not their own fault.
The petitioner must be acquitted on the basis of the immunity granted by the PCGG, which under the law
has the power to grant immunity.

The State’s immunity statutes are of American origin. In the United States, there are two types of
statutory immunity granted to a witness. They are the transactional immunity and the use-and-derivative-
use immunity

Two kinds of immunity that can be granted:


1. Transactional Immunity – is broader in the scope of its protection. By its grant the witness can
no longer be prosecuted for any offence whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction.
2. Used-and-derivative-use – a witnessed is only assured that his or her particular testimony and
evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution.

Nachura: (Galman v. Pamaran)


Transactional Immunity – It is granted by the Commission on Human Rights to any person whose
testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, which makes the witness immune
from criminal prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
Use and fruit immunity – which prohibits the use of the witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in
any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.

Nachura: These immunity statutes are not a bonanza from government. Those given this privilege paid a
high price for it; the surrender of their right to remain silent. These laws should, therefore, be given a
liberal interpretation.

You might also like