Case Brief: Payumo v.
Sandiganbayan (a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to
Facts: the substantial rights of the accused have been
commited during the trial;
A composite team of Philippine Constabulary and (b) That new and material evidence has been
Integrated National Police units allegedly fired at a discovered which the accused could not with
group of civilians instantly killing one civilian and reasonable diligence have discovered and
wounding seven others, including Edgar Payumo. produced at the trial and which if introduced and
The accused pleaded not guilty to the offense admitted would probably change the judgment.
charged. During the trial, the accused interposed It must be emphasized that an erroneous admission
the defenses of lawful performance of duty, self- or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a
defense, mistake of fact, and alibi. They insisted ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if
that the incident was a result of a military there are other independent evidence to sustain the
operation, and not an ambush as claimed by the decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been
prosecution. admitted; would not have changed the decision.
The records of the JAGO relative to shooting
The Fifth Division promulgated its judgment dated incident do not meet the criteria for newly
November 27, 1998, convicting the accused of the discovered evidence that would merit a new trial.
crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered
The accused filed their Supplemental Omnibus evidence may be granted only if the following
Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial requisites are met:
because there was serious irregularity during the 1. that the evidence was discovered after trial;
trial due to the erroneous admission of the 2. that said evidence could not have been
testimonies of the witnesses of the petitioners, such discovered and produced at the trial even with the
should be taken anew and to afford the accused the exercise of
opportunity to present in evidence the records of reasonable diligence;
the Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO) 3. that it is material, not merely cumulative,
relative to the shooting as to whether it was an corroborative or impeaching; and
ambush or the result of a military operation. The 4. that the evidence is of such weight that, if
omnibus motion was granted. admitted, would probably change the judgment.
It is essential that the offering party exercised
Ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the
Sandiganbayan amounting to lack or excess of evidence before or during trial but nonetheless
jurisdiction for nullifying the order of conviction failed to secure it. In this case, however, such
and granting new trial, Edgar Payumo and et. al, records could have been easily obtained by the
filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with accused and could have been presented during the
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
order and/or injunction to enjoin the
Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the Ceniza-Manantan v. People (2007)
scheduled hearings for a second new trial. FACTS:
Alberto Carilla is a jeweler whose office
Issue: was located in Cubao, Quezon City. Sisters-
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted in excess in- law Regina Manantan-Vizconde and
of its jurisdiction when it granted a new trial in Marissa Ceniza-Manantan entered into an
favor of the accused. agreement with him – that they would act as
Held: his agent in selling pieces of jewelry.
Yes. Rule 121, Section 2 of the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure enumerates the grounds for a The jewelry’s total worth was Php
new trial, to wit: 1,079,000. They received the jewelry in
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall trust with the obligation to sell them within
grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: two weeks and remit the proceeds to Carilla
after two more weeks. In the event of them
being unable to sell, they were to return VIRTUAL GIVEAWAY TO THE
them within the same period. PROSECUTION TO SEND HER TO THE
GALLOWS. THE CONSEQUENCE WAS A
After the lapse of the period, the sisters-in- MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
law failed to remit the purchase price or
return the jewelry. Because of this, Carilla HELD:
made verbal demands and they issed several
checks. Regina issued thirteen postdated Apropos the second assignment of error, Manantan
checks while Marissa issued four herself. seeks a new trial because her former counsel, Atty.
Donato A. Mallabo (Atty. Mallabo) of the Public
Carilla deposited the checks upon maturity Attorneys Office (PAO), was incompetent and had
but they were dishonored for the reason that failed to discharge his duty as her defense counsel
the account from which the checks were resulting in a denial of due process to her. She
drawn had been closed. After a written claims that Atty. Mallabo asked Carilla only a few
demand was ignored by the sisters-in-law, questions during the latter's cross-examination and
Carilla filed a criminal complaint for estafa. did not conduct a re-cross examination; that after
the prosecution had rested its case, the RTC
Manantan denied the allegations and Presiding Judge inquired from Atty. Mallabo if he
proposed the following defenses: that would file a motion to dismiss on demurrer to
Carilla was merely harassing her due to his evidence, which was already a hint of the weakness
failure to recover from her the jewelries he of the prosecution's evidence, but Atty. Mallabo
allegedly entrusted to them; that Vizconde ignored the question and presented, instead,
borrowed checks from her to show to Manantan as sole witness for the defense; and after
prospective clients only and that she a few perfunctory questions to Manantan, already
promised to return them; that she denied rested the case for the defense.
having any business transactions with
Carilla. Settled is the rule that mistake and negligence of a
counsel bind his client. The basis is the tenet that
The RTC convicted Manantan of estafa an act performed by a counsel within the scope of
under par. 1(b), Art. 315 of the RPC. Upon his general or implied authority is regarded as an
appeal to the CA, the appellate court act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or
affirmed the trial court’s decision hence the negligence of a counsel may result in the rendition
present appeal. of an unfavorable judgment against his client.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNSEL A contrary view would be inimical to the greater
FOR PETITIONER IN THE TRIAL COURT interest of dispensing justice. For all that a losing
MISERABLY FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO party will do is to invoke the mistake or negligence
DISCHARGE HIS BOUNDEN DUTY TO HIS of his counsel as a ground for reversing or setting
CLIENT. STATED DIFFERENTLY, SAID aside a judgment adverse to him, thereby putting
COUNSEL'S INCOMPETENCE WAS SO no end to litigation.40 To allow this obnoxious
GREAT AND SO EXECRABLE THAT, IN THE practice would be to put a premium on the willful
INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AT and intentional commission of errors by accused
LEAST A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE persons and their counsel, with a view to securing
ORDERED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IF new trials in the event of conviction.
ONLY TO AFFORD PETITIONER THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HERSELF WITH witness; the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy
THE ASSISTANCE OF AN EFFECTIVE AND of certain evidence, the proper defense, or the
VIGILANT COUNSEL OF HER OWN CHOICE. burden of proof; and failure to introduce certain
THE AFORESAID FAILURE AND/OR evidence, to summon witness and to argue the case
REFUSAL OF HER COUNSEL WERE A are not proper grounds for a new trial.42 Error of
the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
neither an error of law nor an irregularity upon officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
which a motion for new trial may be presented.
xxxx
Concededly, the foregoing rule admits of
exceptions. Hence, in cases where (1) the counsel's (e) Causing any undue injury to any party,
mistake is so great and serious that the client is including the Government, or giving any private
prejudiced and denied his day in court, or (2) the party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in preference in the discharge of his official
the client's deprivation of liberty or property administrative or judicial functions through
without due process of law, the client is not bound manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
by his counsel's mistakes, and a new trial may be inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply
conducted. to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
Tested against these guidelines, we find that permits or other concessions.
Manantan's case falls within the general rule rather
than the exceptions. That there are two (2) different modes of
committing the offense: either by causing undue
Saludaga and Genio vs Sandiganbayan injury or by giving private person unwarranted
benefit. That accused may be charged under either
GR No. 184537 April 23, 2010 mode or under both. Hence a new preliminary
investigation is unnecessary.
Facts:
Saludaga and Genio entered into a Pakyaw Tejano v Sandiganbayan
Contract for the construction of Barangay Day
Care Centers without conducting a competitive Facts:
public bidding as required by law, which caused Petitioner Tejano, Jr. was Vice-President of
damage and prejudice to the government. An Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Manager of
information was filed for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of PNB Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch; and his co-
RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the accused Dolores Arancillo and Amelia Fufunan
Government. The information was quashed for were Central Bank Assistant Regional
failure to prove the actual damage, hence a new Administrator and Cashier-Reliever, respectively,
information was filed, now for violation of Sec. 3 of PNB Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch.
(e) of RA 3019 by giving unwarranted benefit to a
private person. The accused moved for a new On December 8, 1992, a certain "Juan dela Cruz"
preliminary investigation to be conducted on the wrote a letter to then Ombudsman Conrado M.
ground that there is substitution and/or substantial Vasquez seeking the investigation of certain
amendment of the first information. accounts of PNB Cebu Branch, one of which was
Jovana Fish Farms, Inc. owned by Arancillo. The
Issue: letter alleged that Far East Bank & Trust Company
Whether or not there is substitution and/or (FEBTC) Check No. 742414 dated February 1,
substantial amendment of the information that 1991, in the amount of ₱200,000.00, was approved
would warrant an new preliminary investigation. for encashment by petitioner, and remained in his
custody and made part of the cash on hand in the
Ruling: PNB-Casino Vault until February 7, 1991. Said
No, there is no substitution and/or substantial check was sent for clearing only after the loan of
amendment. Jovana Fish Farms, Inc. was approved and the
proceeds were released to fund the same.
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers The letter was treated as a complaint lodged with
already penalized by existing law, the following the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas,
docketed as OMB-VIS-(CRIM)-96-0363. On of the judgment or final order or resolution
October 28, 1996, the Deputy Ombudsman for the appealed from, or the denial of the petitioner’s
Visayas issued an Order requiring accused motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due
Arancillo, petitioner, and Ma. Teresita Chan, time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly
Assistant Vice-President of PNB Cebu Branch, to filed and served, with full payment of the docket
submit their respective counter-affidavits, with and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs
which they all complied. before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Supreme Court may, for justifiable reasons,
In her Counter-Affidavit2 dated February 18, 1997, grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within
accused Fufunan stated that she was informed by which to file the petition.
another Cashier, Gaudioso Ypanto, that FEBTC
Check No. 742414 was signed and approved for Petitioner alleges that the aforequoted provisions
encashment by petitioner and was to be considered are applicable only when pure questions of law are
as cash until it could be deposited on the next involved which justified his Motion for New Trial
banking day. She alleged that she was forced by on the ground of newly discovered evidence to be
circumstances to follow the treatment of the check presented by accused Arancillo during the trial.
as cash, for to do otherwise would result in a
shortage in her Teller’s Transfer Form. This Court disagrees. Section 1, Rule 121 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "the
In his Counter-Affidavit with Counter-Complaint3 remedies of motion for reconsideration and motion
dated February 26, 1997, petitioner claimed that for new trial may be availed of at any time before
the grant of loan to Jovana Fish Farms, Inc. had a judgment of conviction becomes final, which is
been confirmed in the restructuring of its amount within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of
as approved by the Seniro Management Credit the judgment.”
Committee, PNB Head Office. He also denied that
the said check in the amount of ₱200,000.00 was In the present case, petitioner had already availed
allowed to remain as part of the cash on hand of of a motion for reconsideration, which was denied
PNB Cebu Branch. by respondent Sandiganbayan. His next remedy is
set forth under Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606, as
Issue: Newly discovered evidence which petitioner amended by R.A. No. 8249, which provides that
could not with reasonable diligence have decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan
discovered and produced during the trial and if shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by
admitted would probably change the judgment in petition for review on certiorari raising pure
the case. questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. In Neypes v. Court of Appeals,28
Held: R.A. 8249, Sec. 7. x x x A petition for the Court allowed a fresh period of 15 days within
reconsideration of any final order or decision may which to file a notice of appeal in the Regional
be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation Trial Court to be counted from receipt of the order
or notice of the final order or judgment, and such dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for
motion for reconsideration shall be decided within reconsideration. This "fresh period rule" shall also
thirty (30) days from submission thereon. apply to Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to
the Supreme Court. Without an appeal, the
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan judgment becomes final upon expiration of the
shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by period and execution should necessarily follow.29
petition for review on certiorari raising pure Unfortunately, petitioner failed to avail of the said
questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the remedy within the 15-day period and, instead, filed
Rules of Court. x x x (emphasis ours) a motion for new trial. The petitioner cannot be
allowed to resort to another remedy as a substitute
Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: for an appeal.
Sec. 2. Time for filing; extension. – The petition
shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice
Hence, respondent Sandiganbayan correctly ruled this Court upheld the dismissal by therein
that its Decision dated March 17, 2003 became respondent Sandiganbayan of therein petitioner’s
final and executory upon the lapse of the appeal motion for new trial which was not supported by
period. Respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated the affidavits of the proposed witnesses, or by a
its Decision on March 17, 2003. On March 25, brief narration of the facts to which therein alleged
2003, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the witnesses will testify. Applying the same to the
said decision, but the same was denied on present case, petitioner not only failed to support
September 24, 2003. Petitioner received a copy of his claim by not furnishing respondent
the resolution denying his motion for Sandiganbayan with a copy of the affidavit of
reconsideration and, thus, had 15 days, or until accused Arancillo, but he erroneously concluded
October 25, 2003, within which to file his petition that since his co-accused pleaded "not guilty," his
for review on certiorari. Petitioner’s procedural own criminal liability has also been eradicated.
misstep of filing a motion for new trial did not
produce any legal effect and, therefore, did not PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V
operate to suspend the enforcement of his sentence. FRITZGERALD
Perforce, the Decision dated March 17, 2003 of FACTS:
respondent Sandiganbayan became final and
executory after the expiration of the 15-day An Information filed with the Regional Trial Court
reglementary period without an appeal having been (RTC), Branch 75, Olongapo City and docketed as
properly taken by the petitioner. Criminal Case No. 422-94, charged Fitzgerald, an
Even assuming that the remedy of a motion for new Australian citizen, with Violation of Art. III,
trial is allowed, petitioner has yet to establish the Section 5, paragraph (a), subparagraph (5) of
fact that the reappearance of the accused Arancillo, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610,3 allegedly
who would testify on certain matters, qualified as committed as follows:
newly discovered evidence. For the Court to grant
a new trial on the ground of newly discovered That sometime in the month of September 1993, in
evidence under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of the City of Olongapo, Zambales, Philippines and
Court, it must be shown that: (a) the evidence was within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could said accused VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD,
not have been discovered and produced at the trial actuated by lust, and by the use of laced drugs
with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is ("vitamins") willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or induced complainant "AAA,"4 a minor, 13 years of
impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, age, to engage in prostitution by then and there
will probably change the judgment.30 showering said "AAA" with gifts, clothes and food
and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a new trial violation of the aforesaid law and to her damage
because the conviction was based on facts which and prejudice.
were then not available during the trial proper as
accused Arancillo was at-large. Petitioner argues ISSUE: Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction to
that the arrest and arraignment of accused act on said Motion, considering that the case had
Arancillo, who would be testifying that petitioner been remanded to the RTC for new trial.
did not help and cooperate in the perpetration of
the crime, constitutes newly discovered evidence HELD:
which will be the vital testimonial evidence that We resolve first the preliminary question of
may lead to his eventual acquittal. whether the CA, after issuing its August 25, 2000
Resolution granting a new trial, still had
In cases where the accused avails of the remedy of jurisdiction to act on respondent's Motion to Post
new trial, the accused has the burden of showing Bail. Our ruling on this matter, however, shall be
that the new evidence he seeks to present has limitted to the effect of the August 25, 2000 CA
complied with the requisites to justify the holding Resolution on the latter's jurisdiction; it shall have
of a new trial.31 In Balanay v. Sandiganbayan,32
no bearing on the merits of said Resolution as this over the case, even as it delegated to the RTC the
has been decided with finality in G.R. No. 146008. function of receiving the respondent's newly-
discovered evidence. The CA therefore retained its
According to petitioner, considering that the authority to act on respondent's bail application.
August 25, 2000 CA Resolution, referring the case Moreso that the the original records of the case had
to the RTC for new trial, had become final and yet to be transmitted to the RTC when respondent
executory on May 2, 2001 when this Court denied filed his bail application and the CA acted on it.
its Petition for Review in G.R. No. 146008, then,
when the CA issued the August 31, 2001 Dinglasan Jr. v CA
Resolution granting respondent bail, it had been
stripped of jurisdiction over the case. Facts:
Petitioner is mistaken. On 17 August 1985, Elmyra Trading Corporation
(Elmyra), represented by its President, Dinglasan,
When this Court grants a new trial, it vacates both and Antrom, Inc. (Antrom), also represented by its
the judgment of the trial court convicting the President, Antonio Garcia Jr., entered into a
accused31 and the judgment of the CA affirming Memorandum of Agreement whereby the parties
it,32 and remands the case to the trial court for agreed that Antrom will extend credit
reception of newly-discovered evidence and accommodation in favor of Elmyra to finance its
promulgation of a new judgment,33 at times with prawn business. The latter, in turn, will issue
instruction to the trial court to promptly report the checks to guarantee the payment of its obligations.
outcome.34 The Court itself does not conduct the
new trial for it is no trier of facts. A few months after a number of financing
transactions were made, Elmyra's indebtedness to
However, when the CA grants a new trial, its Antrom reached the amount of P1,476,000.58. As
disposition of the case may differ, notwithstanding initial payment, Dinglasan issued a Commercial
Sec. 1,36 Rule 125 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Bank (drawee bank) Check No. HO270451 with
Procedure which provides for uniformity in Antrom as payee, but postdated on 3 October 1985
appellate criminal procedure between this Court in the amount of P515,000.00. Upon presentment
and the CA. Unlike this Court, the CA may decide for payment with the drawee bank, however, the
questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and said check was dishonored for insufficiency of
law.37 Thus, when it grants a new trial under Sec. funds.
14, Rule 124, it may either (a) directly receive the
purported newly-discovered evidence under Sec. Consequently, on 16 December 1985, an
12,38 or (b) refer the case to the court of origin for Information3 charging Dinglasan with Violation of
reception of such evidence under Sec. 15.39 In Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed before the RTC
either case, it does not relinquish to the trial court of Makati, Branch 62, docketed as Criminal Case
jurisdiction over the case; it retains sufficient No. 21238, People of the Philippines v. A. Rafael
authority to resolve incidents in the case and decide C. Dinglasan, Jr. The Information reads:
its merits.
That on or about the 3rd day of October, 1985, in
Now then, the CA, in its August 25, 2000 the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila,
Resolution, ordered: first, the remand of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
original records of the case to the RTC; second, Honorable Court, the above-named accused, well
that the RTC receive the new evidence material to knowing that he has no sufficient funds in or credit
appellant's defense within 60 days from receipt of with the bank, did there and then willfully,
the original records; and third, that the RTC submit unlawfully and feloniously make out and issue
to it the said evidence together with the transcript Commercial Bank of Manila Check No. H0207451
of the case within 10 days after reception of dated October 3, 1985 in the amount of
evidence.40 From the foregoing dispostion, it is P515,000.00 in payment of his obligation to
evident that the CA retained appellate jurisdiction Antrom Inc., represented by Rosanna E. Velasco,
but when said check was presented to the bank for material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
payment, the same was dishonored and/or refused impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted,
payment for reason "Drawn Against Insufficient will probably change the judgment.26
Funds" and accused, despite repeated demands and
lapse of five (5) banking days from notice thereof, These standards, also known as the "Berry Rule,"
failed and refused to make good the said check trace their origin to the 1851 case of Berry v. State
and/or to deposit with the drawee bank the of Georgia27 where the Supreme Court of Georgia
necessary amount to cover the aforesaid check, to held:
the damage and prejudice of the herein
complainant in the aforementioned amount of Applications for new trial on account of newly
P515,000.00 discovered evidence, are not favored by the Courts.
x x x Upon the following points there seems to be
On 16 December 1991, the trial court convicted a pretty general concurrence of authority, viz; that
Dinglasan for having committed the crime it is incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial,
charged. on the ground of newly discovered evidence, to
satisfy the Court, 1st. That the evidence has come
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT A NEW TRIAL OR to his knowledge since the trial. 2d. That it was not
REOPENING OF THE CASE BASED ON owing to the want of due diligence that it did not
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE SHOULD come sooner. 3d. That it is so material that it would
BE ALLOWED. produce a different verdict, if the new trial were
granted. 4th. That it is not cumulative only - viz;
Held: speaking to facts, in relation to which there was
evidence on the trial. 5th. That the affidavit of the
Dinglasan further asseverates that this petition was witness himself should be produced, or its absence
belatedly made because the evidence sought to be accounted for. And 6th, a new trial will not be
admitted were not available at the time the instant granted, if the only object of the testimony is to
petition should have been filed. Accordingly, he impeach the character or credit of a witness.
claims that this evidence falls within the purview
of newly discovered evidence as contemplated by These guidelines have since been followed by our
law. courts in determining the propriety of motions for
new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of
Court reads: It should be emphasized that the applicant for new
Rule 121 – New Trial or Reconsideration. trial has the burden of showing that the new
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall evidence he seeks to present has complied with the
grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.28
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to The threshold question in resolving a motion for
the substantial rights of the accused have been new trial based on newly discovered evidence is
committed during the trial; whether the proferred evidence is in fact a "newly
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered evidence which could not have been
discovered which the accused could not with discovered by due diligence." The question of
reasonable diligence have discovered and whether evidence is newly discovered has two
produced at the trial and which if introduced and aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the
admitted would probably change the judgment. evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e.,
when should or could it have been discovered.29
The requisites for newly discovered evidence Applying the foregoing test, Dinglasan insists, and
under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of the affidavits of Ma. Elena Dinglasan and
Criminal Procedure are: (a) the evidence was Encarnacion Vda. De Dinglasan attest, that the
discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could transmittal letter dated 8 October 1985 was
not have been discovered and produced at the trial discovered recently or just before the time the
with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is
affidavits were executed on 23 October 2000. The David Sustento, and it rejected the defense of alibi
records, however, show otherwise. proferred by Calanza and his witnesses. The
prosecution did not present as a witness Ofelia
Verily, the claim of Dinglasan that the alleged Ticzon, who was Elizabeth Soliven's companion at
evidence sought to be presented in this case was the time of the incident.
recently discovered is a falsity. It is a desperate
attempt to mislead this Court to give due course to Briefly, Elizabeth's testimony was to the effect that
a cause that has long been lost. Dinglasan appeals when they were leaving the theatre, Calanza
for the compassion of this Court but never did so accosted them at the aisle, held Elizabeth's hand,
in good faith. It is contrary to human experience to and when the deceased inquired for the reason,
have overlooked an evidence which was decisively Calanza struck him with a revolver and ultimately
claimed to have such significance that might shot him (deceased) as the latter was trying to
probably change the judgment. stand, hitting him near the ear.
The records are very clear. The transmittal letter Dissatisfied with the trial Court judgment, Calanza
dated 8 October 1985 was already offered as appealed to respondent Court of Appeals.
evidence in CA-G.R. CR No. 14138 and was even
annexed to the Petition for Review filed before the On August 13, 1976, before filing his Brief,
Court of Appeals as Annex "B." Irrefragably, the Calanza filed a Motion for New Trial.
letter dated 8 October 1985 is not newly
discovered. It is an attempt to raise again a defense Issue: Whether or not respondent appellate Court
which was already weighed by the appellate court. acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the
A contrary ruling may open the floodgates to an Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly
endless review of decisions, where losing litigants, discovered evidence based on Ofelia Ticzon's
in delaying the disposition of cases, invoke Affidavit.
evidence already presented, whether through a
motion for reconsideration or for a new trial, in Held:
guise of newly discovered evidence. In the instant case, the Resolution of the Court of
Appeals granting new trial was served on the
People vs. CA and Sonalan Solicitor General on November 23, 1976. 13 The
Resolution became final on December 9, 1976. 14
Facts: No action having been seasonably taken to seek
The records show that private respondent, Antonio reconsideration, nor review by a higher Court,
Calanza was charged on April 22, 1970 with the before the finality of said Resolution, it has to be
crime of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide before held that appeal therefrom has been foreclosed and
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch II. The the present petitions for Certiorari, may not be
victim who was shot and killed on April 17, 1970 utilized to obtain review of that Resolution after
at the balcony of the Cinema Theatre, Iloilo City, the time of appeal has elapse 15 The remedy of
was Ponciano Sonalan brother of private petitioner certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.
16
and private prosecutor in the Court below, Atty. respondent appellate Court, having acted within
Nicolas P. Sonalan. Also hurt and wounded in the its jurisdiction when it issued the Resolution in
same incident was one Virginia Sarrol. question, the same cannot be corrected by
certiorari but is more properly the subject of
On November 10, 1975, the trial Court convicted appeal.
Calanza.
It will also have to be noted that when the Petition
In arriving at the judgment of conviction, for certiorari was filed by the private prosecutor on
respondent Judge gave full credence to the positive January 11, 1977 and by the City Fiscal on January
Identification of the accused Calanza by Elizabeth 18, 1977, new trial had already commenced on
Soliven, the deceased's companion, and former January 12 and 13, 1977 in the Court of First
paramour of Calanza and by another eyewitness, Instance of Iloilo and at the time our Restraining
Order was issued only the Prosecution had to
Present rebuttal evidence.
Neither can it be successfully argued that an Order
granting or denying new trial is an interlocutory
order and cannot be the subject of appeal or of a
special civil action. As enunciated in People vs.
Bocar et al., 18 that rule does not apply in a criminal
case because in deciding the case anew the trial
Court may acquit the defendant and thereafter "the
prosecution would have no more opportunity of
bringing before the appellate Court the question of
the legality or illegality of the order granting a new
trial because the defendant acquitted may plead
double jeopardy."
Considering all the foregoing facts, is called for.
The ends of justice will not be subverted by the re-
opening for if the newly discovered evidence
consisting of the testimony of Ofelia Ticzon is, as
contended by the Solicitor General merely
impeaching and not persuasive enough to secure a
rev of the judgment, the accused will still stand
convicted and his appeal will take its course. But if
the trial Court should find that testimony of this
witness is sufficient to overthrow the evidence
submitted during the trial then the accused would
be entitled to an acquittal cha
