Supreme Court rejects reopening of Ninoy case

The Supreme Court rejected yesterday the petition of the convicted killers of Sen. Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. and Rolando Galman, his military-tagged assassin, seeking to reopen the 22-year-old case and allow them to undergo a new trial.

"Again, petitioners did not allege concrete facts to support their class claim," read in part the tribunal’s 25-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Reynato Puno.

The Supreme Court said the report of forensic experts from the University of the Philippines cannot be considered as new evidence because "it essentially reiterates" the defense theory used during the trial.

"Clearly, the report is not newly-discovered evidence, but rather recently sought, which is not allowed by the rules," read the decision.

"If at all, it only serves to discredit the version of the prosecution which had already (been) weighed and assessed, and thereafter upheld by the Sandiganbayan."

In their petition, the 16 former soldiers presented as "new" evidence a UP forensic report showing that Aquino was shot while he was walking on the airport tarmac towards a waiting van of the defunct Aviation Security Command.

However, the Supreme Court said: "This is contrary to the findings of the Sandiganbayan, in the second trial that it was (Constable 1st Class Rogelio) Moreno, the security escort positioned behind Senator Aquino, who shot the latter."

The former soldiers also sought to present as "new" evidence the testimony of Senior Police Officer 4 Ruben Cantimbuhan, the driver of the Avsecom van, that he saw a man in a blue uniform, similar to that of a Philippine Airlines maintenance crew — who was later identified as Galman — suddenly fire at Aquino as he was about to board the van.

But the Supreme Court said Cantimbuhan’s affidavit merely corroborates the testimonies of other defense witnesses during the trial.

"SPO4 Cantimbuhan’s testimony will not in any way alter the Court’s decision in view of the eyewitness accounts of (prosecution witnesses, Rebecca) Quijano and (Jessie) Barcelona, taken together with the physical evidence presented during the trial," the decision read.

"Certainly, a new trial will only be allowed if the new evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. Also, new trial will not be granted if the new evidence is merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching."

The former soldiers also told the tribunal that they have been denied due process because they had been deprived of "adequate legal assistance" during the trial.

However, the Supreme Court said: "We are not persuaded. The records will bear out that petitioners were ably represented by Atty. Rodolfo U. Jimenez during the trial, and when the case was elevated to the Court."

The tribunal said Jimenez, an experienced lawyer, vigorously defended the 16 soldiers during the entire proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.

"The records show that the defense presented a substantial number of witnesses and exhibits during the trial," the SC said.

"After the Sandiganbayan rendered the decision, Atty. Jimenez filed a petition for review with the Court, invoking all conceivable grounds to acquit the petitioners." — Jose Rodel Clapano