Lumanog v People
eyewitness during the trial.
FACTS:
- Lumanog, Santos, Fortuna, and De Jesus were found guilty
for the crime of murder. (SC) (Col. Abadilla)
- The accused-movants filed separate motions for
reconsiderations
- The accuses-movants strongly assail the weight and
credence accorded to the identification of the accused by
lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution, security
guard Freddie Alejo.
They pointed out that;
a.) In his statement given to the police investigators, Alejo
mentioned only four suspects, contrary to his
subsequent testimony of the court
b.) Alejo accepted financial support and benefit from the
Abadilla family which could have colored his testimony
against the accused.
c.) His court identification of 6 accused is questionable and
unreliable considering that it referred to them only by
numbers and he had given prior description of 2
suspects
d.) The ocular inspection conducted by the trial court to
confirm Alejos observation was likewise unreliable
because it was made at a time when a material
condition is significantly altered.
- Fortuna submitted an affidavit executed by Orencio Jurado
Jr. who claims to be one of the police officers assigned to
investigate the case. Fortuna contends that said belated
statement would certainly cast doubt on the procedures
undertaken by the police authorities in the apprehension of
the likely perpetrators.
ISSUE:
Whether the affidavit of Jurado can be admitted as a newly
discovered evidence
RULING:
- No. This cannot be considered as newly discovered
evidence.
- The affidavit is for the defense argument that there was no
positive identification of Abadillas killers. In order for there
be a new trial in the ground of a new and material evidence,
must be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
have been discovered before the trial in the court below.
- At the case at hand, the movant Fortuna failed to show that
the defense exerted efforts during the trial to secure
testimonies from police officers like Jurado, or other persons
involved in the investigation, who questioned or objected to
the apprehension of the accused in this case. Hence, the
belatedly executed affidavit of Jurado does not qualify as
newly discovered evidence that will justify re-opening of the
trial and/or vacating the judgment.
- In any case, we have ruled that whatever flaw that may have
initially attended the out-of-court identification of the
accused, the same was cured when all the accused-
appellants were positively identified by the prosecution
As to the affidavit of Orencio G. Jurado, Jr.
submitted by Fortuna, the said affiant claimed
that he had a heated argument with Inspector
Roger Castillo during one of the hearings
before the trial court because Inspector
Castillo was urging him (Jurado) "to confirm
that those arrested by the joint team of CID
and PARAK-DILG were exactly the same
people/suspects described by the guards to
which [he] firmly declined". Jurado alleged
that he was surprised to see the faces of the
suspects flashed on TV several days after
Herbas and Alejo gave their statements at
Camp Karingal because they did not fit the
description given by witnesses Herbas and
Alejo. Jurado was also allegedly prevented
earlier by an unidentified policeman
Movants raising the issue for the 1st time.
According to the transcript notes taken during
the ocular inspection conducted in the trial
court, there was no objection or comment
made by the defense counsel regarding the
timing of the inspection and its relevance to
the evaluation of Alejos testimony.
Balaba v People
FACTS:
- 2 state auditors conducted an examination if the cash and
accounts of the accountable officers of the Municipality of
Guindulman, Bohol. The state auditors discovered a cash
shortage, unaccounted cash tickets, and an unrecorded
check payable to Balaba. (P 114,186.34)
- An information for malversation of public funds was charged
against Balaba in the RTC which found Balaba guilty of the
charge. (Dec. 9, 2002)
- Balaba filed his notice of appeal, where indicated that he
would file his appeal before the CA, thereafter he filed his
appellants brief on CA.
- CA dismissed Balabas appeal, it declared that it had no
jurisdiction to act on the appeal because the Sandiganbayan
has execlusive jurisdiction over the case.
- Balaba filed a MFR and asked that he be allowed to pursue
his appeal before the proper court, the Sandiganbayan, but
was also denied by CA.
ISSUE:
Whether CA erred in dismissing his appeal instead of certifying
the case to the Sandiganbayan.
Ruling:
- No, the CA did not err.
- Upon Balabas convition by the trial court, his remedy should
have been an appeal to the Sandiganbayan. Par 3, sec 4c of
RA 8249 which defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
 which states that The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of
their own original jurisdiction of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.

- There is nothing in the said paragraph which can

conceivable justify the filing of Balabas appeal before the
CA instead of the Sandiganbayan. Clearly the CA is bereft
any jurisdiction to review the judgment Balaba seeks to
appeal.

Sec2, Rule 50 an appeal erroneously taken to the CA

shall not be transferred to the appropriate court shall be
dismissed outright.
Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing
the appeal only after the expiration of the period to
appeal.
RTC decision on (dec.9,2002).
Balaba filing notice on appeal (jan.14,2003)
CA decision on lack of jurisdiction (dec.15,2004)
Balaba tried to correct error on (jan.27,2005)
Beyond 15-day period to appeal