Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Rule 120: Judgement Memaid

Case Facts Issue Ruling

SECTION 1. Rosario Tan filed a case for recovery of ownership of a parcel WON CA erred in its decision 1. YES.
Judgment; of land against respondents Ramirez, et. al. Rosario alleges Compromise agreement not a valid basis of possession in good faith and just
Definition and Form. that her great-grandfather, Catalino, acquired said property WON RTC rendered the title. In the present case, to avoid any conflict with Belacho, Roberto and
under a Tax Declaration in 1915. The respondents trace their correct judgment in relation Nicomedesa paid P1,800.00 in consideration of Belachos desistance from
1. Tan v. Ramirez, ownership of said land through a compromise agreement and to sec 1 rule 120 further pursuing her claim over two (2) parcels of land, including the subject
G.R. No. deed of absolute sale from Gavino who has been cultivating property. Thus, no right can arise from the compromise agreement because
158929. August the said property. Gavino is the husband of one of the the parties executed the same only to buy peace and to write finis to the
3, 2010 daughters of Catalino. controversy; it did not create or transmit ownership rights over the subject
property. In executing the compromise agreement, the parties, in effect,
MCTC RULING :the subject property was the conjugal merely reverted to their situation before Civil Case No. B-565 was filed.
property of Gavino and Gliceria; Glicerias death in 1952
dissolved the conjugal partnership and entitled Gavino to a Contract of sale cannot support claim of good faith and just title. .
one-half portion as his conjugal share, while Glicerias one-
half share should be equally divided among Gavino and In the present case, no dispute exists that Roberto, without Nicomedesas
Glicerias brothers and sisters or their children. It held that knowledge or participation, bought the subject property on September 16,
Roberto was entitled to only 3/4, as this was Gavinos entire 1977 or during the pendency of Civil Case No. B-565. Roberto, therefore,
share, while the petitioner was entitled to 1/4 of the subject had actual knowledge that Belachos claim to ownership of the subject
property. property, as Gavinos purported heir, was disputed because he (Roberto) and
Nicomedesa were the defendants in Civil Case No. B-565. Roberto even
RTC (affirmed mctc)rendered a 2 page decision declaring admitted that he bought the subject property from Belacho to avoid any
plaintiff and respondents to be co- owners of said land, 1/4 to trouble.[35] He, thus, cannot claim that he acted in good faith under the belief
pet and 3/4 to resp. RTC however did not substantiate its that there was no defect or dispute in the title of the vendor, Belacho.
legal and factual bases of its decision
Not being a possessor in good faith and with just title, the ten-year period
CA set aside MCTC and RTC ruling and declared Roberto to required for ordinary acquisitive prescription cannot apply in Robertos favor.
be the sole owner of the disputed land. It found that Even the thirty-year period under extraordinary acquisitive prescription has
Compromise Agreement executed by Belacho gave Robertos not been met because of the respondents claim to have been in possession,
possession of the subject property the characters of in the concept of owner, of the subject property for only twenty-four years,
possession in good faith and with just title. from the time the subject property was tax declared in 1974 to the time of the
filing of the complaint in 1998.

2. YES

RTC Decision did not conform to the requirements of the Constitution


and of the Rules of Court
The RTC decision did not distinctly and clearly set forth, nor
substantiate, the factual and legal bases for its affirmance of the MCTC
decision. It contained no analysis of the evidence of the parties nor
reference to any legal basis in reaching its conclusions. Judges must
inform the parties to a case of the legal basis for their decision so that
if a party appeals, it can point out to the appellate court the points of
law to which it disagrees. Judge Apostol should have known the
exacting standard imposed on courts by the Constitution and should
not have sacrificed the constitutional standard for brevitys sake. Had
he thoroughly read the body of the MCTC decision, he would have
clearly noted that the proportion of 1:3, stated in the penultimate
paragraph of the decision, meant that the petitioner was entitled to one-
fourth, while the respondents were entitled to three-fourths, of the
subject property.
SECTION 2. There is no solid statement of facts. WON CA erred in giving NO.
Contents of the credence to the prosecutions The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the
Judgment This is from the State Witness chain of circumstances circumstantial evidence in lieu guilt of the accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct
1. Bacolod v. of direct evidence available. evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond
People, G.R. N Ruben Gonzales heard the loud voices of the petitioner and reasonable doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can
206236. July 15, his sister coming from the Cogtas house that the Bacolod supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged may also be
2013 family had been renting, with the petitioner demanding proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or
money from his sister Daisy Mae Bacolod but the latter not presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that
acceding to the demand; he was then only about 15 arms which goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in
lengths away from the Cogtas house. Not soon after, issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in
Gonzales heard a commotion inside the Cogtas house, and issue.
then immediately saw Daisy Mae and three other persons
running out of the house asking for help. Gonzales himself Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which requires for circumstantial
going towards the house to see what was happening, saw evidence to warrant the conviction of an accused that;
the petitioner in the kitchen waving a flaming blanket that he 1. there are more than one circumstance;
had lit from the burner stove. The petitioner then came out of 2. the facts from which the circumstances arose are duly established
the house, daring anyone to arrest him. Gonzales turned off in court; and,
the burner stove in the kitchen, even as he saw the ceiling of 3. the circumstances form an unbroken chain of events leading to the
the kitchen already in flames; and the fire immediately spread fair conclusion of the culpability of the accused for the crime for
to the other parts of the house, and which eventually burned which he is convicted
down the house completely. Gonzales account about the Ostensibly, the court rules make no distinction between direct evidence of a
commotion inside the house was corroborated by Alexander fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may
Cernal, a barangay tanod who happened to be on board his be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
tricycle at the same subdivision where the Cogtas house was circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must
located. be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

RTC: Guilty but did not include the imposed penalty upon the RELATED TO SECTION 2 RULE 120
accused and the civil liability or damages caused.
It is not amiss to stress that both the RTC and the CA disregarded their
CA: affirmed the RTC in full, hence the court also failed to express mandate under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have
include the imposed penalty and the civil liability the judgment, if it was of conviction, state:
1. the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances which attended its commission:
2. the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact;
3. the penalty imposed upon the accused;
4. the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended
party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil
liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or
waived. Their disregard compels us to act as we now do lest the
Court be unreasonably seen as tolerant of their omission. That the
Spouses Cogtas did not themselves seek the correction of the
omission by an appeal is no hindrance to this action
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on December 9, 2011
by the Court of Appeals, subject to the MODIFICATIONS that:
1. the indeterminate sentence for GILFREDO BACOLOD a.k.a.
GILARDO BACOLOD is corrected from 10 years of prision mayor,
as minimum, to 16 years and one day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum;
2. GILFREDO BACOLOD a.k.a. GILARDO BACOLOD is ORDERED
to pay the amount of P500,000.00 as temperate damages to
SPOUSES CEFERINO AND GEMMA COGTAS, plus interest of
6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision, plus the
costs of suit.
2. Garces v. Respondent was acquitted of murder by the RTC. Whether CA committed grave NO. In his Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court, petitioner
Hernandez, Jr., G.R. No. and reversible error when it admitted that he did not waive the civil action or reserve the right to institute it
180761. August Physical evidence: primarily a gun, empty bullet shells denied the petition for certiorari separately nor did he institute the civil action prior to the criminal action.
9, 2010 recovered near the body of Rustico. The gun recovered was considering that there is more Petitioners remedy then was, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, to
never established to have belonged to any of the private than a preponderance of appeal within the reglementary period the trial courts decision, which was
respondents. evidence on record supporting silent on the civil aspect of the case.
the claims of petitioner garces
Testimonial evidence: We find no reason to disagree with the against the private Rule 120, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides:
finding of public respondent giving no credence to the respondents to award civil
testimonies of witnesses testified that they saw accused at liability. SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment.
11.am. traversing the barangay road while carrying the dead (b) In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of
body of Rustico with Simplicio, Sr. and Rosita walking with the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely
them. Indeed, as observed by public respondent, if such fact failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the
actually happened, there should have been many witnesses judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
who could have testified to this event. Besides, settled is the might arise did not exist.
rule that to be credible, testimonial evidence should not only
come from the mouth of a credible witness but should also be Under the immediately-quoted rule, a trial court, in case of acquittal of an
credible. In this case, the said testimonies are inconsistent accused, is to state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to prove his
with human nature. It is unbelievable that private respondents guilt or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in either
would kill Rustico and then expose themselves to prosecution case, it shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
by parading the evidence of their crime in public and in broad might arise did not exist. From the earlier-quoted portion of the decision of
daylight. the trial court, however, particularly the following portions:

Pertinent portions of the judgment of acquittal: In the case at bar, there is clearly no moral certainty that can be arrived
at by the Court in convicting the accused. Physical and testimonial evidence
In the case at bar, there is clearly no moral certainty that presented by the Prosecution have failed to elicit in the mind of the Court
can be arrived at by the Court in convicting the accused. the conclusion that the herein accused should and must be held
Physical and testimonial evidence presented by the criminally liable for the heinous death of Rustico Garces. As a matter of
Prosecution have failed to elicit in the mind of the Court the fact, the physical evidence in his case instead of strengthening only
conclusion that the herein accused should and must be held weakened its case.
criminally liable for the heinous death of Rustico Garces. As a
matter of fact, the physical evidence in his case instead of x x x These actuations of the accused eloquently speak of their innocence
strengthening only weakened its case. in the face of unreliable evidence presented by the Prosecution.
...These actuations of the accused eloquently speak of their
innocence in the face of unreliable evidence presented by The Court finds that the acts or omissions from which the civil liability of
the Prosecution. respondents might arise did not exist.

After the promulgation of judgment, Atty. Florentino H.


Garces entered his appearance as counsel for the father of
the victim, Roman Garces (petitioner), and filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the trial court's decision respecting
respondent's civil liability.

RTC dismissed the motion on the ground that Counsel


appears to have no legal personality to file the motion. The
records do not show that he was Counsel of record for the
Private Prosecution and neither was the motion signed by the
[Provincial] Prosecutor. That rhe matter should be properly
prosecuted in an appropriate separate civil action and not in
the same criminal case which gave rise to such right.

Petitioner appealed. CA denied. Ratio : In the present case,


there is no dispute that the judgment of the trial court
acquitting private respondents is already final. What
petitioner is assailing is the failure of public respondent to
rule on the civil liability of private respondents. However,
while an appeal appears to have been open and available,
petitioner, without any justifiable reason, did not resort to this
remedy. This is a fatal procedural lapse.

SECTION 3. Lindo was charged with rape committed against an 11-year Whether or not the lower court YES.Both the RTC and the CA, however, erred in finding only one count of
Judgment for old neighbor (AAA). erred in convicting the accused rape in the present case. It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws
Two or More Offenses) only of one count of rape. the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate
by then and there carrying said [AAA], a minor, 11 years old, court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from,
1. People v. Lindo, and bringing her to a vacant lot, trying to insert his penis into whether they are made the subject of the assignment of errors or not.From
G.R. No. her vagina but said accused was not able to do so, thereafter (N.B. not the one indicated in the information filed, it is clear that accused-appellant was charged with two
189818. August inserting his penis into her anus.. the case but what is pertinent offenses, rape under par. 1 and 2. Accused-appellant was charged with
9, 2010 to the Rule). having carnal knowledge of AAA, who was under twelve years of age at the
AAA attended a pabasa at a neighbor's place, during which time, under par. 1(d) of Art. 266-A, and he was also charged with committing
she fell asleep under a platform that served as a stage. While an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or
AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her away to a place near a anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
creek where clothes are placed to dry. It was there that AAA another person under the second paragraph of Art. 266-A. Two instances of
woke up, as Lindo removed her short pants and underwear, rape were indeed proved at the trial.
and also undressed himself. He tried inserting his penis
into her vagina (STRIKE 1), whereupon his penis made Two offenses were charged, a violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the
contact with her sex organ but there was no complete Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states, A complaint or
penetration. Not achieving full penile penetration, he then information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a
made her bend over, and inserted his penis into her anus single punishment for various offenses.
(STRIKE 2), causing her to cry out in pain. Lindo then sensed
the arrival of a friend of AAA, so he discontinued his act, and Section 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: When
told AAA to put on her clothes and go home. two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the
accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of
Accused defense : alibi. That during the crime happened he as many as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each
was working as a painter from 8:00pm-5:0am. offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
As accused-appellant failed to file a motion to quash the Information he can
RTC found Lindo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime be convicted of two counts of rape.
of Statutory Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lindo appealed to the CA assailing AAAs credibility. CA Other matters:


affirmed RT conviction. At the outset, it must be noted that the RTC and the CA made reference to
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime of rape is no longer to be
found under Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code, or crimes against
chastity. As per Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the
crime of rape has been reclassified as a crime against persons.The crime of
rape is now defined under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, with the
penalties for rape laid out in Art. 266-B. As the incident happened on April 3,
2001, it is no longer covered by Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, but Art.
266-A.
SECTION 4. Ricalde, a 31 year old man, was a distant relative of XXXs WON the variance doctrine NO. SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and
Judgment in mother. XXX, a 10 year old boy, was the textmate of Ricalde. shall apply. proof.When there is variance between the offense charged in the
Case of Variance Between One time, XXX requested his mother to invite Ricalde for complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is
Allegation and Proof dinner. After which, XXXs mother offered Ricalde to sleep in included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
1. Ricalde v. the living room sofa while XXX slept on the floor. By 2AM, convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
People, G.R. No. XXX felt that something was inserted in his anus and of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
211002. January discovered it to be Ricalde. XXXs mother, armed with a
21, 2015. knife, told Ricalde to leave. In People v. Sumingwa, the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654
was charged with qualified rape but was convicted for the lesser offense of
Provincial Prosecutor of Bian, Laguna charged Ricalde with acts of lasciviousness committed against a child under Article III, Section 5(b)
rape with sexual assault. (Instrument or object rape; gender- of Republic Act No. 761091 since "there was no penetration, or even an
free rape; homosexual rape) attempt to insert [the accuseds] penis into [the victims] vagina.

During trial, the first witness, XXX categorically identified In the instant case, no variance exists between what was charged and
Ricalde to be the one who inserted something into his anus. what was proven during trial. The prosecution established beyond
XXX felt that Ricalde inserted his penis into his anus as XXX reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of rape through sexual assault.
was able to touch Ricaldes penis while the perpetrator was
playing with the minors penis. However, XXX also testified The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victims dignity. The degree
that he was able to push Ricalde away. The second witness of penetration is not important. Rape is an "assault on human dignity.
of the prosecution, the medico-legal officer, also stated that
although there was a negative finding of any abrasion or However, the SC modified the penalties imposed upon Ricalde in
trauma in the anus of XXX, still, the possibility of penetration accordance to the Child Abuse Law or RA 7610.
cannot be discounted because of the sphincters flexibility.
The imposable penalty under Republic Act No. 7610, Section 5(b) "for
Ricalde denied the charge against him. He argued that the lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
testimonies of XXX were inconsistent (1), that there was no reclusion temporal in its medium period." This penalty is higher than the
presence of spermatozoa in the anus (2), and that the imposable penalty of prision correccional for acts of lasciviousness under
variance doctrine should be applied (3). Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

RTC convicted him. CA affirmed. The fact that XXX was only 10 years old when the incident happened was
established by his birth certificate, and this was admitted by the defense. His
age of 10 years old was alleged in the Information. The higher penalty under
Republic Act No. 7610, as discussed in People v. Chingh, applies in this
case.

Having sex with a 10-year-old is child abuse and is punished by a special law
(Republic Act No. 7610). It is a progression from the Revised Penal Code to
provide greater protection for children. Rape is rape. Rape of a child is
clearly, definitely, and universally child abuse.

SC affirmed CA and convicted Ricalde with rape with sexual assault.

Bernabe Pareja was charged with two counts of rape and WON the variance doctrine YES. As to the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, the variance doctrine
2. People v. Pareja, G.R. one attempted rape. Pareja is the stepfather of a 13 year old shall apply. shall apply.
No. 202122. girl, AAA.
January 15, 2014. AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003,
In the first incident of rape on December 2003, Pareja inserted his penis into her anus. While she may not have been certain about
mashed the breasts of AAA and inserted his penis into her the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had
anus while the victim was asleep. anal sex with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the
occurrence of rape by sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this
In the second incident of rape on February 2004, Pareja account was, as the Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.
sucked again the breasts of AAA and then proceeded to
insert his finger into her vagina while caressing the sleeping However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003
victim. In both rape incidents, AAAs mother was away. incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be found
guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial.
In the last incident which was of attempted rape, Pareja This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between
crawled towards AAA while she was asleep and attempted to the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the
lift her skirt when were it not for the shocking discovery of second, and viceversa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual
AAAs mother who just arrived, the victim would have been assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge,
raped again. would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
The Information for two counts of rape and one attempted
rape was filed: Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of
December 2003: Rape through carnal knowledge. lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, in
February 2004: Rape with sexual assault. relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Results of the medico-legal examination confirmed that AAA SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When
was indeed raped. Pareja argued that the house they were there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
living in were too congested and surrounded by other houses information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
so the possibility of rape is untenable and that the victim was necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
just blaming him to be the reason for the separation of AAAs the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
parents. charged which is included in the offense proved.

RTC convicted Pareja with acts of lasciviousness (February Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. Any person who shall commit any act of
2004) and rape (December 2003) but acquitted him from lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the
attempted rape for failure of prosecution to present AAAs circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by
mother as witness. CA affirmed. prisin correccional.

For Clarificatory Purposes: The elements of the above crime are as follows:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
Q: Why did RTC convicted Pareja with acts of lasciviousness (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
when in the Information he was charged with rape with a. By using force or intimidation; or
sexual assault (February 2004)? b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
or
A: RTC did not find that the same level of proof, i.e., beyond c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
reasonable doubt, was fully satisfied by the prosecution in its (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.
charge of attempted rape and a second count of rape against
Pareja. In Criminal Case No. 041556CFM, or the February Clearly, the abovementioned elements are present in the December 2003
2004 incident, the RTC considered AAAs confusion as to incident, and were sufficiently established during trial. Thus, even though the
whether or not she was actually penetrated by Pareja, crime charged against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can
and eventually resolved the matter in Parejas favor. Thus, be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his
because of the material omissions and inconsistencies, constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.
Pareja cannot be convicted of rape in the February 2004
incident. Nonetheless, Parejas acts of placing himself on top SC affirmed CA but held Pareja guilty with two counts of acts of
of AAA and sucking her breasts, fall under the crime of acts lasciviousness.
of lasciviousness, which is included in the crime of rape.

SECTION 5. When Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio was charged with violation of WON the CA erred in reversing NO.
an Offense Includes or is Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines the RTC ruling. Since Asisitio is a committee member and officer she is liable.
Included in Another. (Republic Act No. [RA] 6938). As the chairperson of A.
1. Asistio v. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Coop WON the CA erred in SEC 124. Penal Provisions of RA 6938:
People, G.R. No. entering into a contract with Coca-cola Products in her own remanding the case back to A director, officer or committee member who violated the provisions of
20046 capacity when in truth and in fact the said contract should the to the RTC ignored the rule Section 47 shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than five (5)
5. April 20, 2015 accrue to the coop. that dismissal of the charge on years but not more than ten (10) years or both at the courts discretion.
demurrer to evidence amounts
Arraigned: Not Guilty to an acquittal and the The Court, in order to carry out the obvious intent of the legislature, may
dismissal is not appealable. correct clerical errors, mistakes or misprints which, if uncorrected, would
By virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement between the render the statute meaningless, empty or nonsensical or would defeat or
school and the Cooperative, Dr. Nora T. Salamanca, the impair its intended operation, so long as the meaning intended is apparent
school principal, directed petitioner to submit her financial on the face of the whole enactment and no specific provision is abrogated.
reports during her tenure as Chairperson. Instead, petitioner To correct the error or mistake is to prevent the nullification of the statute and
claimed that the principal had no business and authority to give it a meaning and purpose. For it is the duty of the court to give a statute
require her to produce financial statements, and that the said a sensible construction, one that will effectuate legislative intent and avoid
reports had been posted on the school bulletin board. The injustice or absurdity.
principal then created an audit committee to look on the said
issue and it was proven that such transaction really exist. It may not be amiss to point out that the clerical error noted by the OSG in
Despite requests for her to return to the coop the amounts Section 124(3) of RA 6938 on the liability of directors, officers and committee
she had allegedly misappropriated petitioner failed and members, has been recognized and duly corrected when the legislature
refused to do so. Thus the Coop issued a Board Resolution enacted RA 9520, entitled An Act Amending the Cooperative Code of the
authorizing the filing of criminal charges against petitioner. Philippines to be known as the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008.

Asistio moved to dismiss case by way of demurrer to NO.


evidence with prior leave of court, on the ground the RTC On whether the remand of the criminal case to the RTC violated her right
Manila has no jurisdiction, as the crime(Violation of RA 6938) against double jeopardy due to its earlier dismissal on the ground of lack of
charged does not carry with it sanction for which she can be jurisdiction, the Court rules in the negative and upholds the CA in ruling that
held liable(because violation of [Sec.] 46 of R.A. 6938 would the dismissal having been granted upon petitioners instance, double
be punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) jeopardy did not attach.
months nor more than one (1) year ).
In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and
RTC: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. dismissed the case not for insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC did not decide the
The coop/teachers filed an MR denied by the RTC. Grounds: case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of petitioners guilt or
a. Nowhere in said in R.A. 6938 does it provide for innocence based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being
penal sanctions/liability for violation of acts or the case, the October 14, 2008 RTC Order of dismissal does not operate as
omission prescribed therein. If ever, the liability is an acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of
only for damages and for double the profits which the Rules of Court.
otherwise would have accrued to the
cooperative(this section of the law was said to be a RELATED TO RULE 120 SECTION 5
clerical error)
b. before this case was filed in Court, Verily, there is nothing common or similar between the essential elements of
conciliation/mediation process for the amicable the crimes of falsification of private document under Article 172(2) of the
settlement of the dispute was not availed of by the RPC and that of violation of Section 46 of RA 6938, as alleged in the
private complainants Informations filed against petitioner. As neither of the said crimes can be said
c. No prior availment and exhaustion of administrative to necessarily include or is necessarily included in the other, the third
remedies requisite for double jeopardy to attach a second jeopardy is for the same
offense as in the first is, therefore, absent. Not only are their elements
CA: Reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and different, they also have a distinct nature, i.e., the former is malum in se, as
remanded the case records to the RTC for further what makes it a felony is criminal intent on the part of the offender, while the
proceedings. latter is malum prohibitum, as what makes it a crime is the special law
enacting it.
Hence this petition.
It is basic in criminal procedure that an accused may be charged with as
many crimes as defined in our penal laws even if these arose from one
incident

SECTION 6. Sps. Salvador were charged in the RTC with estafa. On Whether Salvador lost his right YES.
Promulgation of March 30, 2011, the date scheduled for promulgation of to appeal his conviction
Judgment. judgment, their counsel moved to defer the promulgation on As the rule expressly indicates, the promulgation of the judgment of
1. Salvador v. the ground that Horacio Salvador was suffering from conviction may be done in absentia. The accused in such case is allowed a
Chua, G.R. No. hypertension. Unconvinced, the RTC proceeded with the period of 15 days from notice of the judgment to him or his counsel within
212865. July promulgation and found the Sps. Salvador guilty of estafa. which to appeal; otherwise, the decision becomes final.
15, 2015
Horacio filed a Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal on The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of
April 13, 2011, and attached a medical certificate supposedly conviction loses the remedies available under the Rules of Court against the
issued by a Dr. Paulo David, which certified that Horacio judgment, specifically:
submitted himself to a medical consultation on March 30 and (a) the filing of a motion for new trial or for reconsideration (Rule
was found to be suffering from hypertension. 121), and
(b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122)
The RTC initially denied the Motion for Leave to file Notice of
Appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Sec. 6, Rule However, the Rules of Court permits him to regain his standing in court in
120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. order to avail himself of these remedies within 15 days from the date of
promulgation of the judgment conditioned upon:
Salvador moved for reconsideration. The RTC granted on (a) his surrender; and
October 26, 2011.. (b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail himself of the
remedies, stating therein the reason for his absence
The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration against
the Oct. 26 order, attaching an affidavit executed by Dr. Should the trial court find that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he
Paolo David, which affirmed that he had not examined should be allowed to avail himself of the remedies within 15 days from notice
Salvador and that he never issued a medical certificate in of the order finding his absence justified and allowing him the available
Salvadors favor. In fact, his name was misspelled in the remedies from the judgment of conviction.
medical certificate.
Based on the records, the promulgation of the judgment was on March 30,
The petitioner opposed, and submitted another medical 2011; hence, the petitioner had only until April 14, 2011 within which to meet
certificate issued by Dr. Santos-Enriquez, an OB- the mandatory requirements under Section 6.
Gynecologist.
In the attempt to regain his right to avail himself of the remedies under the
Thereafter, a special civil action for certiorari was filed in the Rules of Court, the petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File a Notice of
CA by Chua to nullify the Oct. 26 order (which gave due Appeal, and attached the medical certificate issued by Dr. Paulo Miguel
course to Salvadors notice of appeal). David. Yet this did not establish a justifiable cause, as Dr. Paolo David,
directly impugned the credibility of this certificate. The petitioner later
The CA granted the petition and nullified the Oct. 26 order. submitted another medicate certificate, which, aside from being belatedly
issued, went unsupported and unauthenticated by the testimony of the
alleged issuing physician, who turned out to be an OB-Gynecologist. The CA
justly discredited the certificates.

Even assuming that he suffered hypertension, which could have validly


excused his absence, the petitioner did not fulfill the other requirement
of Section 6: to surrender himself to the trial court. The term surrender
used in the rule visibly necessitated his physical and voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict against
him.

In its assailed decision, therefore, the CA unavoidably declared the petitioner


to have lost his standing in court because of his non-compliance with Section
6. His failure to fulfill the requirements rendered the conviction final and
immutable.

He ought to be reminded that the right to appeal, being neither a natural


right nor a part of due process, is a merely statutory privilege that should
be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law
establishing the right; otherwise, it is lost.

2. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan Jaylo, Valenzona. Habalo, and Castro were police officers Whether Section 6 takes away NO.
(First), G.R. Nos. 183152- placed on special detail with the NBI. In June 1990, the US the right to file a motion for
54. January 21, 2015 DEA approached the NBI with information on a sale of a reconsideration Jaylo et. al. argue that their right to file a motion for reconsideration or an
considerable amount of heroin in the Philippines. Jaylo was appeal has a statutory origin, as provided under Section 7 of P.D. 1606,
assigned to head the team that would conduct a buy-bust to wit:
operation, with the aid of US DEA undercover agent
Needham. Needham posed as a member of an international Section 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions.
drug syndicate and conducted negotiations for the purchase Xxx A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may
of 10 kilograms of heroin from Arrastia, Calanog, and de be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the
Guzman. The exchange was to be conducted in the evening final order or judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be
at the parking lot of Magallanes Commercial Center. decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.

Needham arrived in a taxi with Arrastia and Manila, who was Their argument lacks merit. Like an appeal, the right to file a motion for
an undercover NBI agent posing as Needhams bodyguard. reconsideration is a statutory grant or privilege. As a statutory right, the
The taxi was driven by Noriega, another undercover NBI filing of a motion for reconsideration is to be exercised in accordance with
operative. He was met by Calanog, Manguera, who alighted and in the manner provided by law. Thus, a party filing a motion for
from a blue Volkswagen Beetle, and de Guzman, who reconsideration must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules
alighted from a brown Saab.. of Court.50

Needham approached the blue Beetle and examined the It bears stressing that the provision on which petitioners base their claim
heroin. After confirmation, he walked back towards the taxi states that [a] petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may
while executing the prearranged signal of taking out his be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order
handkerchief and blowing his nose. or judgment. In Social Security Commission v. Court of Appeals, we
enunciated that the term may denotes a mere possibility, an
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION: opportunity, or an option. Those granted this opportunity may choose to
Jaylo et. al. rushed in with at least 15 other operatives and exercise it or not. If they do, they must comply with the conditions attached
surrounded de Guzman, Calanog and Manguera. When the thereto.
car with Needham was safely on its way, Jaylo et. al. shot de
Guzman, Calanog and Manguera. They waited for the victims Petitioners insist that the right to file a motion for reconsideration under
to bleed out before loading them into the vehicles under the Section 7 of P.D. 1606 is a guarantee, and no amount of Rules promulgated
ruse of bringing them to a hospital. by the Supreme Court can operate to diminish or modify this substantive
right. Aptly citing Fabian v. Desierto, the Sandiganbayan was correct in
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE: rejecting the argument of petitioners in this wise:
While Jaylo et. al. were in the process of arresting de
Guzman, Calanog and Manguera, they were distracted by a Fabian v. Desierto lays down the test for determining whether a rule
speeding car and a burst of gunfire. This allowed de Guzman prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the
et. al. to reach for their firearms and attempt to shoot at the lower courts, abridges, enlarges or modifies any substantive right, to wit:
NBI operatives. In retaliation, Jaylo et. al. fired back, and shot
de Guzman et. al. Afterwards, they brought them to a whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial
hospital. process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law
and for justly determining remedy and redress for a disregard or
THE ELMA COMMITTEE infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not
President Aquino issued an admin order creating the Elma procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it
Committee to conduct an investigation. The Elma Committee may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a
recommended the prosecution of Jaylo, Calanog, Valenzona means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely
and Habalo for the killing of de Guzman, Calanog and with procedure.
Manguera.
Applying the Fabian v. Desierto test, it appears indubitable that Section 6,
SANDIGANBAYAN Rule 120 of the Rules of Court clearly applies to the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan found Jaylo et. al. guilty of homicide.
Considering the failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away per se the
and the attendance of any of the alleged qualifying right of the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is
circumstances, as well as the failure of the defense to prove the failure of the accused to appear without justifiable cause on the
the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or lawful scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of conviction that forfeits
exercise of a right or office, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the their right to avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment.
crime committed was homicide.
It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court
During the promulgation of this judgment on April 17, 2007, diminishes or modifies the substantive rights of petitioners. It only works in
none of the accused appeared despite notice. The decision pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to provide a simplified and
was promulgated in absentia and judgment was entered. inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. This provision
protects the courts from delay in the speedy disposition of criminal cases
On April 30, 2007, counsel for Jaylo, Valenzona and Habalo delay arising from the simple expediency of non-appearance of the accused
filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction.

On November 29, 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued a It is incumbent upon the accused to show justifiable cause for their
resolution taking no action on the motion and ordering the absence at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.
implementation of the warrants of arrest for the convicted
accused. It is well to note that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court also provides
the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation
The court ruled that the 15-day period from the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the
of the judgment had long lapsed without any of the accused judgment of conviction. In order to regain their standing in court, the accused
giving any justifiable cause for their absence during the must do as follows:
promulgation. Under Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of 1) surrender and
Court, Jaylo, Valenzona and Habalo have lost the remedies 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies, stating the
available under the Rules against the Sandiganbayans reasons for their absence, within 15 days from the date of the
judgment of conviction, including the filing of a motion for promulgation of judgment.
reconsideration.
In Villena v. People, we stated that the term surrender contemplates
the act by the convicted accused of physically and voluntarily
submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the
consequences of the judgment against them. Upon surrender, the
accused must request permission of the court to avail of the
remedies by making clear the reasons for their failure to attend the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction.

Clearly, the convicted accused are the ones who should show that
their reason for being absent at the promulgation of judgment was
justifiable. If the court finds that the reasons proffered justify their non-
appearance during the promulgation of judgment, it shall allow them to
avail of the remedies.60 Thus, unless they surrender and prove their
justifiable reason to the satisfaction of the court, their absence is
presumed to be unjustified.

SECTION 7. This is the case of a neophyte who died by hazing. The Whether the completion by NO. Normally, the petition of the People would result into a double jeopardy
Modification of accused are students of the Ateneo de Manila School of Law Tecson et al. of the terms and for Tecson, et. al. because they have already completed their probation. BUT
Judgment. and members of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity. conditions of their probation SURPRISE: this is one of the exceptions where the state assails the very
1. Villareal v. discharged them from their jurisdiction of of the court that issues the criminal judgment.
People, G.R. The initiation rites are scheduled to last for 3 days. After the criminal liability, and closed
Nos. second day of beatings and physical and psychological and terminated the cases Indeed, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court speaks of the finality of a criminal
15125 torment, while the neophytes are already resting, 2 alumni, against them judgment once the accused applies for probation, viz:
8 etc., December Dizon and Villareal demanded that the rites be reopened.
1, 2014. Head of initiation, Victorino initiarlly refused but upon SECTION 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may,
insistence of the two, he reopened it. The neophytes were upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final
again subjected to additional rounds of paddling. or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a
judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal,
After the last session, Lenny could no longer walk. When or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or
they were sleeping, the neophytes were suddenly roused by when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for
Lennys shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, probation.
Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they
thought he was just overacting. When they realized, though, Only the accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a criminal case,
that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans especially if the relief being sought is the correction or review of the judgment
started helping him. They removed his clothes and helped therein. This rule was instituted in order to give life to the constitutional edict
him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. offense.
Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.
The government has already been afforded a complete opportunity to prove
35 were charged with homicide. the criminal defendants culpability. Unfairness and prejudice would
necessarily result, as the government would then be allowed another
RTC: opportunity to persuade a second trier of the defendants guilt while
26 guilty of homicide strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the first trial, all in a
process where the governments power and resources are once again
CA: employed against the defendants individual means.
19 acquitted
4 guilty of slight physical injuries (Tecson, et. al) However, that the finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120
2 guilty of homicide (Dizon and Villareal) does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments. We have
already explained in our Decision that the rule on double jeopardy is not
SC: absolute, and that this rule is inapplicable to cases in which the state assails
5 guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in the very jurisdiction of the court that issued the criminal judgment.
homicide (Dizon, Tecson and 3 others)
INAPPLICABILITY: Section 7 of Rule 120 is inapplicable and irrelevant
This is actually a consolidation of 4 cases but for where the courts jurisdiction is being assailed through a Rule 65 petition.
purposes of CrimPro, only the case of Tecson, et. al. is (Petition for Certiorari)
relevant.
The orders of Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 have no legal effect, as
After the CA decision rendering them guilty of SPI (lowered they were issued without jurisdiction.
from homicide in the RTC decision), they immediately applied
for probation. Tecson et al. filed their Applications for Probation with the wrong court.

In their MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OR The OSG questions the entire proceedings involving the probation
RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SC, Tecson et al. argue applications of Tecson et al. before Caloocan City RTC Branch 130.
that Branch 130 of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Allegedly, the trial court did not have competence to take cognizance of
had already granted their respective Applications for the applications, considering that it was not the court of origin of the
Probation on 11 October 2002 and, upon their completion of criminal case. The OSG points out that the trial court that originally rendered
the terms and conditions thereof, discharged them from the Decision in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) was Branch 121 of the
probation and declared the criminal case against them Caloocan City RTC. Tecson et al. thus committed a fatal error when they
terminated on various dates in April 2003. filed their probation applications with Caloocan City RTC Branch 130,
and not with Branch 121.

Second, the records of the case were still with the CA when Caloocan
City RTC Branch 130 granted the probation applications. A perusal of the
case records reveals that the CA had not yet relinquished its jurisdiction over
the case when Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 took cognizance of the
Applications for Probation of Tecson et al. It shows that the accused filed
their respective applications while a motion for reconsideration was still
pending before the CA and the records were still with that court.

Caloocan City Regional Trial Court Branch 130 acted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the aforementioned Applications for
Probation, we hereby ANNUL the entire probation proceedings and SET
ASIDE all orders, resolutions, or judgments issued in connection thereto.
Without prejudice to their reapplying for probation.

In short, GABA :P

Rule 121: New Trial or Reconsideration

Case Facts Issue Ruling

SECTION 1. New MOTION to reopen case for reception of further evidence. Whether petitioners motion to No
Trial or Reconsideration. reopen the case can be granted
1. Tadeja v. During the celebration of the annual fiesta of Barangay Fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice necessitate
People, G.R. Talabaan, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, two witnesses that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment or orders of courts should
No. 145336 attain finality at some definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there would be
saw Ruben Bernardo being hacked to death by the brothers
February 20,
Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand (petitioners), and no end to litigation. This is the reason why SC have consistently denied
2013.
petitioners first cousin Plaridelall surnamed Tadeja. petitioners motions for reconsideration of this Courts Decision and
subsequent pleas for the reopening of the case.
An Information for homicide for the death of Ruben was filed
against Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, Ferdinand, and Plaridel. 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
RTC convicted Reynante, Ferdinand, Plaridel, Ricardo and the consent of the accused (a)t any time before a judgment of conviction
Ricky guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. becomes final.

Except for Plaridel, who absconded, all the other accused In this case, petitioners judgment of conviction already became final and
(petitioners herein) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). executory on 26 July 2007the date on which the Decision of this Court
DENIED denying the petition and affirming the ruling of the CA was recorded in the
Book of Entries of Judgments. Thus, pleas for the remand of this case to
Petitioners moved for reconsideration. DENIED the trial court for the conduct of a new trial may no longer be entertained.

Petitioners then filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for


Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set
aside the CA Decision and Resolution.

This Court issued a Decision dated 21 July 2006 affirming


the Decision and Resolution of the CA.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, alleging that the SC


had failed to reconcile the testimonies of witnesses Elena
and Jacinta on the one hand and Regina on the other. On 23
October 2006 SC denied the motion with finality.

In a letter dated 7 August 2007 addressed to then Chief


Justice Reynato S. Puno, Ferdinand prayed for the
reopening of the case on the basis of the confession of
Plaridel.

OSG was not posing any objection to the reopening of the


case.

SC denied petitioners motion to reopen the case for


reception of further evidence in the trial court.

2. Custodio v. MOTION TO REOPEN CASE WITH LEAVE OF COURT Whether petitioners motion to This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. reopen the case can be granted the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the
96027-28. March 8, 200 Petitioners were members of the military who acted as evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have
Senator Aquinos security detail upon his arrival in Manila been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
from his three-year sojourn in the United States. They were reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative,
charged, together with several other members of the military, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it
before the Sandiganbayan for the killing of Senator Aquino would probably change the judgment if admitted.
who was fatally shot as he was coming down from the
aircraft of China Airlines at the Manila International Airport. These standards, also known as the Berry rule, trace their origin to the
Petitioners were also indicted for the killing of Rolando 1851 case of Berry vs. State of Georgia where the Supreme Court of
Galman who was also gunned down at the airport tarmac. Georgia held: Applications for new trial on account of newly discovered
evidence, are not favored by the Courts. x x x Upon the following points
Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting all the there seems to be a pretty general concurrence of authority, viz.; that it is
accused, which include the petitioners. However, the incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial, on the ground of newly
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan were later found by discovered evidence, to satisfy the Court, 1st. That the evidence has
SC to be a sham trial. The Court thus nullified said come to his knowledge since the trial. 2d. That it was not owing to the
proceedings, as well as the judgment of acquittal, and want of due diligence that it did not come sooner. 3d. That it is so
ordered a re-trial of the cases. material that it would produce a different verdict, if the new trial were
granted. 4th. That it is not cumulative onlyviz.; speaking to facts, in
A re-trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan. relation to which there was evidence on the trial. 5th. That the affidavit of
the witness himself should be produced, or its absence accounted for. And
Sandiganbayan, while acquitting the other accused, found 6th, a new trial will not be granted, if the only object of the testimony is to
the petitioners guilty as principals of the crime of murder impeach the character or credit of a witness.
.
The judgment became final after SC denied petitioners The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly
petition for review of the Sandiganbayan decision for failure discovered evidence is whether the proferred evidence is in fact a newly
to show reversible error in the questioned decision, as well discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due
as their subsequent motion for reconsideration. diligence. The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two
The petitioners, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office, now aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a
want to present the findings of the forensic group to this predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.
Court and ask the Court to allow the reopening of the cases
and the holding of a third trial to determine the The report of the forensic group may not be considered as newly
circumstances surrounding the death of Senator Benigno discovered evidence as petitioners failed to show that it was impossible for
Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman. them to secure an independent forensic study of the physical evidence
during the trial of the double murder case. It appears from their report that
Petitioners submit that the review by the forensic group of the forensic group used the same physical and testimonial evidence
the physical evidence in the double murder case constitutes proferred during the trial, but made their own analysis and interpretation of
newly discovered evidence which would entitle them to a said evidence.
new trial under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The report of the forensic group essentially reiterates the theory presented
by the defense during the trial of the double murder case.
Motion to reopen the case was denied.

SECTION 2. A shooting incident occurred on February 26, 1980 in Sitio Whether SB (Special 5) erred in Yes. The judgment of conviction penned by Justice Legaspi must be
Grounds for a Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales. A composite setting aside the SB (5) declared valid. Apparently, it was not necessary that he be a member of the
New Trial. team of Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Integrated decision. Fifth Division at the time the decision was promulgated since he remained
1. Payumo v. National Police (INP) units allegedly fired at a group of an incumbent justice of the Sandiganbayan (BP 129). What is important is
Sandiganbayan, civilians instantly killing Amante Payumo and wounding that the ponente in a collegiate court remains a member of said court at the
G.R. Nos. Edgar Payumo, and others. time his ponencia is promulgated because, at any time before that, he has
151911 & the privilege of changing his opinion or making some last minute changes
154537, July 25, SB. Information for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and therein for the consideration and approval of his colleagues.
2011. Attempted Murder was filed against Domiciano Cabigao, and
other private respondents. During the trial, the accused Granting arguendo that the First Division erred in admitting the testimonies
interposed the defenses of lawful performance of duty, self- of the Payumos given during the first trial, which proceedings were nullified
defense, mistake of fact, and alibi. They insisted that the by this Court in Petition 1, the same would still not justify a new trial. It must
incident was a result of a military operation, and not an be emphasized that an erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the
ambush as claimed by the prosecution. trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there
are other independent evidence to sustain the decision, or if the rejected
After four (4) years of trial, the Sandiganbayan (Second) evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have changed the decision.
convicted the accused as co-principals.
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted
Cabigao filed their Motion for New Trial anchored on the only if the following requisites are met:
following grounds: (1) Error of law or irregularities have been (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantive rights (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
of the accused; and (2) the accused were denied procedural trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
due process of law. (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching;
and
Cabigao also appealed to SC (Petition 1). In view of the (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably
appeal, the SB denied accuseds Motion for New Trial on the change the judgment. It is essential that the offering party exercised
ground that it no longer had any jurisdiction over the case. reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial
but nonetheless failed to secure it.
SC. Cabigao filed another petition (Petition 2), claiming that
the Sandiganbayan committed GAD when it denied the The matter of presentation of evidence for the defense is not for the trial
motion for new trial. The Petition 1 was denied for lack of court to decide. Considering that the defense counsels have control over
merit. the conduct of the defense, the determination of which evidence to present
rests upon them.
Re Petition 2, SC granted and set aside the Decision of the
SB and ordered the remanding the case for a new trial. SC The Court notes that the defense presented a substantial number of
clarified that the conduct of a new trial should not be limited witnesses and exhibits during trial de novo to belie the accusation against
to the mere presentation of newly discovered evidence but the accused and to prove the defenses they interposed. It has been held
should be full and complete, taking into account the other that the mistakes of the attorney as to the competency of a witness, the
serious allegations touching on due process. sufficiency, relevancy, materiality or immateriality of a certain evidence, the
proper defense, or the burden of proof are not proper grounds for a new
SB (Fifth). After new trial, SB (5) convicted the accused of trial.
the crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder.

Unrelenting, Cabigao filed an Omnibus Motion to Set Aside


Judgment and for New Trial contending that errors of law or
irregularities had been committed during and after trial which
were prejudicial to their substantive and constitutional rights.
Later, the accused filed their Supplemental Omnibus Motion
to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial, and thereafter their
Supplemental Omnibus Motion to Re-open Case and to Set
for Oral Arguments.

SB (Special 5): Ordered to set aside SB (5) decision since


Justice Legaspi (ponente) could not have been validly
promulgated and could not have acquired binding effect
since Justice Legaspi had transferred to the Second Division
and, hence, he ceased to be a member of the SB (5) before
the Decision was promulgated. The testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Edgar, which had been tainted with
the irregularity of rigodon de juezes pursuant to the ruling
of the Court in the case Petition 2 were erroneously admitted
during the trial de novo and, as such, had to be stricken out
and taken anew. A second new trial would enable it to allow
the accused to adduce pertinent evidence including the
records of the Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO), AFP.

SC: Payumo, et al. filed the present Petition (3).

On 17 August 1985, Elmyra Trading Corporation (Elmyra), Whether a new trial or No. Section 14. Motion for New Trial.At any time after the appeal from the
2. Dinglasan, Jr. v. CA, represented by its President, Dinglasan, and Antrom, Inc. reopening of the case based on lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of
G.R. No. 145420. (Antrom), also represented by its President, Antonio Garcia, newly discovered evidence Appeals convicting the accused becomes final, the latter may move for a
September 19, 2006. Jr., entered into a memorandum of Agreement whereby the should be allowed. new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence material to his
parties agreed that Antrom will extend credit accommodation defense. The motion shall conform to the provisions of section 4 Rule 121.
in favor of Elmyra to finance its prawn business. The latter, in
turn, will issue checks to guarantee the payment of its Explicit from the rule that a Motion for New Trial should be filed before the
obligations. Upon presentment for payment with the drawee judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.
bank, however, the said check was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds. The requisites for newly discovered evidence under Section 2, Rule 121 of
Information charging Dinglasan with Violation of Batas the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: (a) the evidence was
Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed before the RTC of Makati. discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered
and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is
RTC convicted Dinglasan. MR was denied. material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such
weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment. These
CA: Upon appeal, CA dismissed, and affirmed in toto the standards, also known as the Berry Rule, trace their origin to the 1851
decision of RTC. case of Berry v. State of Georgiawhere the Supreme Court of Georgia
held: Applications for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence,
SC: Petition for review was filed, attributing GAD to CA. In its are not favored by the Courts.
decision, SC denied the petition for failure to show that a
reversible error had been committed by the CA. MR was Upon the following points there seems to be a pretty general concurrence of
filed, but was also denied. authority, viz.; that it is incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial, on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, to satisfy the Court:
Undaunted, Dinglasan filed a Second Motion for 1. That the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial.
Reconsideration but the same was merely noted without 2. That it was not owing to the want of due diligence that it did not come
action by this Court in view of the En Banc Resolution dated sooner.
7 April 1987 that no motion for leave to file a second motion 3. That it is so material that it would produce a different verdict, if the new
for reconsideration of a judgment or a final resolution by the trial were granted.
same party shall be entertained. The decision of SC 4. That it is not cumulative onlyviz.; speaking to facts, in relation to which
became final and executory. there was evidence on the trial.
5. That the affidavit of the witness himself should be produced, or its
RTC: Issued a warrant for the arrest of Dinglasan and a writ absence accounted for.
of execution for the enforcement of his civil liability and, at 6. A new trial will not be granted, if the only object of the testimony is to
the same time, enjoining him from leaving the country. impeach the character or credit of a witness.

Dinglasan filed the instant Petition for New Trial and, in the
alternative, for the Reopening of the Case16 based on newly
discovered evidence. He urges this Court to uphold
substantial justice, emphasizing that the newly discovered
evidence he seeks to introduce in this case is so material
and of such weight that, if, admitted would probably change
the judgment, hence, suspension of procedural rules is
warranted.

SECTION 4. Form Simon Flores was charged with Homicide. Procedural Issue: Section 4, Rule 121 states: SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the
of Motion and Notice to the prosecutor. The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in
Prosecutor. He allegedly went into the house of Jesus Avenido, at Whether Sandiganbayans writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. X x x. Notice of the
1. Flores v. nighttime, gathered with family and friends celebrating the outright denial of the MR on a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.
People, G.R. eve of fiesta, and continuously shot Jesus using an M-16 mere technicality amounts to a
No. 181354. Rifle. violation of Floress right to due As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sec. 2 of
February 27, process. Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec. 5 of
2013. Flores interposed self-defense to avoid criminal liability. He Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the rule that every motion must
claimed that he, together with other CAFGU and CSU be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the
members were tasked by the Mayor of Alaminos, Laguna to court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse
conduct a ronda that night in Brgy San Roque. They party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must
observed that Jesus and his guests, while having drinking specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service.
spree, were still having shooting practice for the following
day. Flores, being a relative and Brgy Chairman, was the In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in failing to include a
one who approached and politely requested Jesus to cease notice of hearing, his motion was a worthless piece of paper with no legal
firing their guns and save their shots for next day. However, effect whatsoever. Thus, his motion was properly dismissed by the
this was met with hostility by Jesus and the guests. Sandiganbayan.

Jesus attacked him with his magnum pistol. Twice hit by Flores invokes the exercise by the Court of its discretionary power to review
bullets and bleeding, Flores, with his life and limb at great the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan. He avers that the ponente as
peril, instinctively swung and triggered the baby armalite. well as the other members of the First Division who rendered the assailed
Fearing for more untoward incidents, he withdrew and ran decision, were not able to observe the witnesses or their manner of
through to the Mayors house to report the incident. testifying as they were not present during the trial. He, thus, argues that
there was palpable misapprehension of the facts that led to wrong
SANDIGANBAYAN: conclusions of law resulting in his unfounded conviction.
Found Flores guilty of the offense charged and rejecting his
claim to prove self-defense. According to the His contention is likewise devoid of merit.
Sandiganbayan, there was no reason to doubt the
testimonies of the said witnesses who appeared to have no It is often held that the validity of a decision is not necessarily impaired by
ill motive to falsely testify against Flores. the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier
presided at the trial, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion
Flores filed for MR. Prosecution filed Motion to Expunge in the factual findings reached by him.
(ME). The Sandiganbayan denied the MR for being a mere
scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing, Moreover, it should be stressed that the Sandiganbayan, which functions in
making its assailed judgment final and executory. divisions of three Justices each, is a collegial body which arrives at its
decisions only after deliberation, the exchange of view and ideas, and the
Flores then filed petition for review on certiorari to the SC. concurrence of the required majority vote.

In the present case, Flores has not convinced the Court that there was
misapprehension or misinterpretation of the material facts nor was the
defense able to adduce evidence to establish that the factual findings were
arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the Court sustains the
Sandiganbayans conclusion that Flores shot Jesus and continued riddling
his body with bullets even after he was already lying helpless on the
ground.

(Re: Issue on Self-Defense, SC is not a trier of facts but of law. Flores failed
to discharge his burden to prove.)

PETITION DENIED.

SECTION 6. Roderick Licayan and Roberto Lara were convicted of the 1) Whether the exempting 1) NO. Accused-appellant Delos Reyes did not refute the
Effects of crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and were sentenced to circumstance of uncontrollable testimony of private complainant Co that he (Delos Reyes) was one of
Granting a New Trial or death by the RTC of Marikina City. fear should be considered in the abductors. Instead he admitted going to the house of Pedro Mabansag,
Reconsideration.
favor of Delos Reyes. NO Tata Placio and Jojo (two of the co-accused who were not apprehended)
1. People v.
Licayan, G.R. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. It became poked a gun at him and threatened him that they would kill him if he reports
No. 203961. final and executory on and a Writ of Execution was issued on (2) Whether Licayan and Lara the matter to the police. He admitted that he saw 2 persons inside the
July 29, 2015 ordering the accused to be executed. Weeks before Licayan should be acquitted based on house near the kitchen.
and Lara were scheduled to be executed, two of their co- purportedly newly discovered
accused in the original Information were arrested Pedro evidence? NO After he left the safe house, Delos Reyes admitted that he no longer felt
Mabansag and Rogelio Delos Reyes. being threatened but still he did not report what he witnessed to the police
authorities. The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC, adding that the
The PAO filed with the Supreme Court an Urgent Motion to testimony of DelosReyes was self-serving and could not stand on its
Reopen the Case with Leave of Court. The Court issued a own to prove the elements of the exempting circumstances relied
Resolution ordering the temporary suspension of the upon. The Court held that a person invoking the exempting
execution of Licayan and Lara for a period of 30 calendar circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force admits in effect the
days. commission of a punishable act, and must therefore prove the exempting
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. The Court finds it hard to
The Supreme Court granted the Urgent Motion to Re- believe that a person who accidentally discovers kidnap victims would be
open the Case with Leave of Court and remanded the held at gunpoint by the kidnappers to guard said victims; or that a
case to the lower court for further reception of evidence. mastermind of a kidnapping syndicate, instead of conducting his fighting
cock selling activities in the regular meeting place, would invite a recent
During their arraignment, Mabansag and Delos Reyes affiliate to the place where he is holding prisoners; or that Delos Reyes did
pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged in the Infromations not find it unusual to see a woman with her hands tied.
under which their co-accused were previously indicted.
2.) NO. The pro hac vice resolution of the Supreme Court on January 15,
Mabansay dies while detained at the Marikina City Jail. 2004 allows the Court an unusual task to revisit its own final and
executor decision. It should be stressed that a new trial based on
RTC: rendered its decision finding Licayan, Lara, and Delos newly discovered evidence may only be granted by the court on
Reyes guilty of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and motion of the accused or motu proprio with the consent of the
sentenced them to reclusion accused at any timebefore a judgment of conviction becomes final.
perpetua.
Furthermore, the affidavits of Mabansag and Delos Reyes cannot be
The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals considered newly discovered in that the affiants are the movants co-
accused who were already identified as such during the trial.
CA: Affirmed in toto the lower courts decision on July 4,
2012. To put things in perspective, the pro hac vice Resolution expressly
granted the effects of Rule 121, Section 6 (b) of the Rules of Court. In
Accused-appellant Delos Reyes reiterates his defense of general, the new evidence adduced in the second trial consists in
exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear as to why he
did not report the crime to the police because he was being (1) allegations that the identification of Licayan and Lara by Co and
threatened by his other co-accused. Moreover, other Manaysay was unreliable;
accused-appellants Licayan and Lara seek to overturn their (2) testimonies and affidavits of the recently apprehended Mabansag and
conviction on the basis of newly discovered evidence Delos Reyes, both of whom allege that Licayas and Lara were not involved
presented during their retrial. in the crime; and
(3) testimonies purporting to establish Lara was a t work in Antipolo during
the kidnapping incident.

The second trial was meant to give Licayan and Lara the opportunity
to present new evidence that were not available during the first trial.

However, the focus of their defense was to show that the identification
made by the victims was unreliable.

The Court held that discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details


and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair
their credibility. Instead of weakening the testimonies, these inconsistencies
tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the probability
of their being rehearsed. The new evidence alluded to by the Supreme
Court in its pro hac vice resolution to grant a new trial was supposed
to be the testimonies of the then recently captured Mabansag and
Delos Reyes, who both denied that Licayan and Lara participated in
the crime.

The statements of Mabansag and Delos Reyes would have been given
more weight had they personally admitted their own involvement in the
crime.

Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that for alibi to prosper, it is not
enoughto prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime
was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time
of its commission.

The new evidence presented by Licayan and Lara not only fialed to prove
that either of them was in another place during their alleged participation in
the kidnapping of Co and Manaysay, but likewise failed to discredit the
positive identification made by both Co and Manaysay.

Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the
disposition of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina was AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS by the SC.