Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

3. Reynante Tadeja, Ricky Tadeja, Ricardo Tadeja, and Ferdinand Tadeja vs. People of the Philippines GR No.

145336 By Cybill Facts: On the strength of their co-accused Plaridel Tadejas extrajudicial confession, petitioners pray for the reopening of the homicide case against them. Ruben Bernardo, as witnessed by Ma. Elana Bernardo Almaria and Jacinta del Fierro, was hacked to death by Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand and their first-cousin Plaridel all surnamed Tadeja. Petitiones alleged that Ruben with his sins, Russel and Robeson Bernardo, challenged and stabbed Reynanate during a public dance at Brgy. Talabaan Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. A homicide case was filed against petitioners and Plaridel Tadeja. Reynante filed a case of frustrated homicide against Russel and Robenson. Both Criminal Case No. Z-814 and Z-815 were tried jointly. July 1997, RTC on CC No. Z-815 acquitted Russell and Robenson and found guilty Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, Fernando and Plaridel in CC No. Z-814. Palridel Absconded, while all others appealed to CA and on March 8, 2010, CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Petitioners moved for reconsideration with transcripts of testimonies from new witnesses, the CA denied the motion on the ground that nothing in the transcripts would affect the positive testimonies of Elena and Jacinta of the prosecution. Petitioners filed to SC a PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT, seeking to set aside CAs decision and resolution. July 21, 2006, sc affirmed CA, stating that it would be unnatural for the aggrieved relative to falsely accuse a person other than the actual culprit. November 6, 2006, petitioners filed a MOTION WITH LEAVE OF COURT TO VACATE JUDGEMENT, attaching sworn statements of a new set of witnesses, corroborating that it was Ruben who stabbed Reynante, adding tat it was Plaridel who stabbed Ruben, and that Rickym Ricardo, and Ferdinand were not in the vicinity at the time of the incident. Later, petitioners filed a supplemented MOTION TO MOTION WITH LEAVE OF COURT TO VACATE JUDEGMENT DUE TO SUPERVENING EVENT, that Plaridel was caught and admitted to killing Ruben. SC treated the motion as a second motion for reconsideration of July 2006 decision. Petitioners moved for reconsideration and later filed a SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR MOTION TO SET ASIDE MINUTE RESOLUTION on Janurary 22, 2007, which the SC denied with finality for lack of merit, recording such in the Book of Entries of Judgement. August 7, 2007, on a letter addressed to CJ Puno, Ferdinand prayed for reopening of the case. The sc required the OSG to comment. The OSG manifested that it was not posing any objection to reopen the case. Ferdinand then filed an URGENT MANIFESTATION AND/OR MOTION TO SUSPEND OR HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE EXECUTION OF THE DECISION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE LETTER. The SC issued a resolution denying the motion to suspend the execution of their decision. Petitioners still filed a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, and was again denied for lack of merit, with a statement that no further pleading or motion shall be entertained. But despite such, petitioners filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR FOR REVIEW BY EN BANC, which was again denied n the ground of prohibited pleading, because the Court En Banc is not an appellate court. February 20, 2013

A letter was addressed to the then CJ Corona by Ferdinand, requesting to reopen the case and another letter manifesting their last motion be acted favorable and filed an OMINIBUS MOTION TO LEAVE TO SET ASIDE CONVICTION AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE RTC FOR RECEPTION OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. Issue: WON the motion to remand the case to RTC be allowed? Held: Denied. Section 1 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court provides that a new trial may only be granted by the court on motion of the accused, or motu proprio with the consent of the accused at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. In this case, petitioners judgment of conviction already beca me final and executory on 26 July 2007 the date on which the decision of the Supreme Court denying the petition and affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. Thus, pleas for the remand of this case to the trial court for the conduct of a new trial may no longer be entertained. The rationale for this rule is that fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice necessitate that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment or orders of courts should attain finality at some definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.