Due Process

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 Atienzas dissent in favor of Imeldas
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 Imeldas 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 Imeldas 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
aforestated, 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.