BROTHER MARIANO MIKE Z. VELARDE VS.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

GR NO 159357; APRIL 28, 2004
Judgment
Facts
This case was a Petition for Review assailing the decision and order of the RTC which begins
with a statement of the nature of the action and the question or issue presented. Then follows a
brief explanation of the constitutional provisions involved, and what the Petition sought to
achieve. Thereafter, the ensuing procedural incidents before the trial court are tracked. The
Decision proceeds to a full-length opinion on the nature and the extent of the separation of church
and state. Without expressly stating the final conclusion she has reached or specifying the relief
granted or denied, the trial judge ends her Decision with the clause SO ORDERED.

Issue
With the above stipulations of facts, does the decision made by the trial court valid?

Ruling
NO. It is plainly obvious that the assailed Decision contains no statement of facts -- much less
an assessment or analysis thereof -- or of the courts findings as to the probable facts. Thus would
create hanging questions such as; What were the antecedents that necessitated the filing of the
Petition? What exactly were the distinct facts that gave rise to the question sought to be resolved by
SJS? More important, what were the factual findings and analysis on which the trial court based its
legal findings and conclusions? None were stated or implied. Indeed, the RTCs Decision cannot be
upheld for its failure to express clearly and distinctly the facts on which it was based. Thus, the trial
court clearly transgressed the constitutional directive.

Suffice to state that Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure in
following the constitution provides;

Sec. 2. Form and contents of judgments. -- The judgment must be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain
clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law
upon which the judgment is based.

The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of
the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. Indeed, the losing party is
entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe
that the decision should be reversed. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties
that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning.
 PEOPLE VS DEL MUNDO
G.R. Nos. 119964-69. September 20, 1996
New Trial or Reconsideration
Facts

The accused-appellant Victorino del Mundo was charged with six counts of rape filed by his
ten-year old daughter, Marivic del Mundo. All documentary and testimonial evidence were offered
by the prosecution and admitted by the Court. However, during the presentation of evidence,
complainant Marivic del Mundo identified her affidavit of desistance. But still despite this fact the
court sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and death.

The accused-appellant therewith, filed a verified motion for new trial and submitted to the
court the affidavit of Marivic recanting her testimony and the latest Medical Report of the
examination conducted by the NBI Medico Legal Division which tells that the complainant physical
virginity was preserved. It completely opposed the medico legal report of Dr. Jun Concepcion, City
Health Officer of Cabanatuan City, which was relied upon by the court a quo in rendering the
judgment of conviction inasmuch as it was submitted four weeks after the last act of rape
committed by accused-appellant.

Issue

WON the Motion for New Trial could be granted base on the facts stipulated?

Ruling

Yes. While the NBI-Medico Legal report cannot be considered new and material evidence
which accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, the
court grant the motion for new trial on the broader ground of substantial justice, taking into
account the variance in the two aforesaid reports.
 ANDRADA VS PEOPLE
GR No. 135222, MARCH 4, 2005
New Trial or Reconsideration

Facts

Petitioner herein was charged with frustrated murder by allegedly attacking Cpl. Ugerio who
suffered two major injuries which remained him incapable to remember or recall visual stimuli or
information. Andrada interposed self-defense and invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.That, after hearing, the trial court rendered its Decision finding him guilty of the crime
charged. And on appeal, was modified by the CA, it was found that petitioner is entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority as he was only 17 years, 9 months and 20 days old at
the time of the incident.
Not satisfied, the petitioner filed this present petition assailing that he was not accorded of his
constitutional right of due process considering that his counsel:

1. Failed to present all the witnesses who could have testified that he is innocent of the
crime charged;

2. Failed to present the medical certificate showing the injuries inflicted upon him by the
victim;

3. Did not notify him to attend the hearing when Sgt. Sumabong was cross-examined; and

4. Failed to submit a memorandum.

Issue
WON the contention stated above would warrant the grant of new trial?

Ruling
NO. First and foremost there was no violation of petitioners right to due process. Petitioner
was represented by counsel of his choice. If the latters performance and competence fell short of
petitioners expectations, then he should not blame either the trial court or the Court of Appeals.
The records show that counsel for petitioner actively participated in the cross-examination of
the witnesses for the prosecution to test their credibility. At any rate, the fact that he did not choose
to present other witnesses did not affect any of petitioners substantial rights. Besides, said counsel
might have valid reasons why he did not call to the witness stand those witnesses.
The court further notes that petitioner was present during the hearing and that if he believed
that his counsel de parte was not competent, he could have secured the services of a new counsel
but he did not.
 PEOPLE VS SPO2 ELEAZAR M. MADALI et.al
GR NO 126050; JAN 16, 2001
Appeal
Facts
This case was an appeal on the decision rendered by RTC. The accused - appellant herein were
all members of the PNP who were found guilty of the crime murder of Reynaldo M. Abrenica.
The disputed case was brought into court three years after the death of Reynaldo Abrenica, this
case was filed, after an alleged eyewitness, Mercy Villamor, surfaced and implicated accused-
appellants in the death of Reynaldo. Within which the accused appellant assigned the latter as one
of the errors committed by the trial court specifically in failing to resolve doubts and discrepancies
in its findings of fact in favor of the accused. Thus, seeks for the acquittal in the crime charged.
After the procedural conciliation, when the appellees where required to comment on
complainants (the widow of the victim and her counsel) motion for leave to file a separate brief, the
Solicitor General stated that since complainant had already filed a memorandum, there was no
further need for a brief sustaining the decision on appeal. On the other hand, complainant stated
that her memorandum had already been noted by the Court and, in the interest of a balanced
presentation of facts and the issues, the same should be considered in the resolution of this appeal.

Issue
WON the complainant (widow of the deceased) in this appeal has its right standing in resolving
the appeal.

Ruling
YES. However, be it noted that ordinarily, the appeal of criminal cases involves as parties only
the accused, as appellants, and the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, as the
appellee. The participation of the private offended party would be a mere surplusage, if the State
were simply to seek the affirmation of a judgment of conviction. Contrary thereof, where the Office
of the Solicitor General takes a contrary position and recommends, as in this case, the acquittal of
the accused, the complainants right to be heard on the question of award of indemnity and
damages arises. In the interest of justice and equity and to provide perspective for this appeal,
therefore, the Court hereby allows in this case the memorandum filed by complainant which is
hereby admitted as part of the records of this appeal.
As enunciated in Rule 122, 1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that (a)ny
party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double
jeopardy. It has been held that the word party in the provision in question includes not only the
government and the accused but other persons as well, such as the complainant who may be
affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings.
And that after considering the records of this case, the court agree with the Solicitor General
that the evidence is insufficient to sustain accused-appellants conviction and, therefore, the
decision of the trial court should be reversed and accused-appellants should be acquitted.