Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > March 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 37337 March 28, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO BORJAL

058 Phil 172:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 37337. March 28, 1933.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARSENIO BORJAL, Defendant-Appellant.

Roman de Jesus, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. NEW TRIAL; EFFECT WHEN GRANTED IN CRIMINAL CASE. — The granting of a new trial has the effect of vacating the former judgment and of placing the parties in a situation as if no trial had ever taken place in the cause.

2. ID.; ID. — The order granting a new trial may restrict the same to particular issues or particular parties, or permit both the prosecution and the defense to offer such further and additional evidence as they may desire to submit without the necessity of retaking the evidence already in the record.

3. ID.; EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL CASE. — In a criminal case, when a new trial is granted without qualification, the evidence taken and filed on the previous trial cannot be considered as part of the evidence on the new trial.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of rape by the Court of First Instance of Abra, and sentenced to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500, and, to pay the costs. On appeal, this court, in a decision promulgated on September 8, 1931, affirmed said judgment. 1 Later, upon motion based on newly discovered evidence, this court granted a new trial. The resolution granting a new trial, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon consideration of the motion of the attorney for the accused and appellant in case G. R. No. 34703, the People of the Philippine Islands v. Arsenio Borjal, praying that the decision heretofore rendered therein be reconsidered and set aside, and that the record be remanded to the court below for new trial, and of the objection interposed thereto by the Attorney-General, IT IS ORDERED that the MOTION be GRANTED. After ten days let final judgment be entered remanding the record to the lower court, with instructions to grant the accused a new trial, without special pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to this resolution, the case was again called for trial in the court below. Instead, however, of presenting its witnesses, the prosecution rested its case with the following statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"FISCAL. Voy a reproducir todas las pruebas presentadas en la vista original de esta causa, inclusive los documentos y todos los exhibits, y por ahora no presento pruebas adicionales."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defense objected to the procedure adopted by the prosecution, and moved that it be required to call its witnesses. This motion was denied, to which ruling the defense duly excepted.

On this appeal, the appellant assigns the following errors as having been committed by the lower court, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The court a quo erred in not requiring the prosecution to present anew at the new trial all the evidence against the accused.

"II. The court a quo erred in discrediting Exhibits 1 and 4, and in rejecting Exhibits 2 and 3.

"III. The court a quo erred in convicting the accused on the evidence taken at the original hearing.

"IV. The court a quo erred in holding that the evidence of record is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

"V. The court a quo erred in not acquitting the accused herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

By its resolution of September 26, 1931, this court granted the appellant a new trial without any qualification. It seems well settled that the effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication. Consequently, the case stands as if there had never been a trial. In United States v. Ayres (9 Wall., 609, 610; 19 Law. ed., 627), the Supreme Court of the United States said: "But, it is quite clear, that the order granting the new trial has the effect of vacating the former judgment, and to render it null and void, and the parties are left in the same situation as if no trial had ever taken place in the cause. This is the legal effect of the new trial by a court competent to grant it."cralaw virtua1aw library

Whenever this court intended to restrict the effect of an order granting a new trial, it did so in express terms. Thus in United States v. Tan (4 Phil., 625, 627), this court said: "It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed and the case remanded to the court below for a new trial, in which new trial it will not be necessary to retake the evidence already taken and appearing in the cause, but either party will have the right to present such other evidence as he sees fit." (See U.S. v. Singuimuto, 3 Phil., 176, 184; U.S. v. Dacanay, 6 Phil., 367, 368.) In a case recently decided, this court, in passing upon a question somewhat similar to the one under consideration, said: "When this court remands a criminal case for new trial without restriction, the previous adjudication is wiped out and the case should proceed de novo and be conducted, as far as practicable, as if there had been no previous trial. (U.S. v. Dacir, 26 Phil., 503, 517.) But the order granting the new trial may restrict the same to particular issues or particular parties, or permit both the prosecution and the defense to offer such further and additional evidence as they may desire to submit without the necessity of retaking the evidence already in the record. (U.S. v. Singuimuto, 3 Phil., 176, 183.)" (People v. Avelino de Linao, p. 116, ante.)

In the view we take of the case, it must be held that there is absolutely no competent evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction rendered in this case; for the evidence taken and filed on the previous trial cannot be considered as part of the evidence on the new trial. It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Ostrand and Butte, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 6 Phil., 785.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 36806 March 1, 1933 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. G. L. MARCELINO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 37136 March 1, 1933 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    058 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 37160 March 2, 1933 - E. WALCH v. LIM CHAY SENG

    058 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 37321 March 3, 1933 - INOCENCIO TAN SIMA v. DOLORES HACBANG

    058 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 36385 March 4, 1933 - RITA GARCHITORENA VIUDA DE CENTENERA v. HERMOGENES P. OBIAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 37056 March 4, 1933 - NG HAY YAM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    058 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 37107 March 4, 1933 - YU PIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    058 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 37754 March 4, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO VALDEZ

    058 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 38082 March 4, 1933 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. SANTIAGO SAMBRANO

    058 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. 36858 March 6, 1933 - JUSTA AFABLE, ET AL. v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY

    058 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 37712 March 6, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN MONES, ET AL.

    058 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 36992 March 7, 1933 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. RUFINO ABAD ET AL.

    058 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 37048 March 7, 1933 - MANUELA BARRETTO GONZALEZ v. AUGUSTO C. GONZALEZ, JR., ET AL.

    058 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 37720 March 7, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URSULA SENSANO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 38008 March 7, 1933 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB COMPANY, INC. v. JULIO DANON

    058 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 38953 March 7, 1933 - FAUSTO BARREDO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    058 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 37019 March 8, 1933 - PAZ, DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO C. JAVIER

    058 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 36078 March 11, 1933 - VALERIANA VELAYO BERNARDO v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    058 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 34937 March 13, 1933 - CONCEPCION VIDAL DE ROCES, ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    058 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 37765 March 14, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEDIOS AVELINO DE LINAO

    058 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 37737 March 17, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLAVIANO FLORES, ET AL.

    058 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 37331 March 18, 1933 - FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL. v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., ET AL.

    058 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 37374 March 18, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO EMBALDO

    058 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 37379 March 18, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO EMBALIDO

    058 Phil 154

  • G.R. Nos. 37084 & 37085 March 24, 1933 - ZARATE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    058 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 38344 March 24, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUND TRINIDAD

    058 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 37459 March 27, 1933 - PABLO DEL ROSARIO v. VALENTIN MALLARI, ET AL.

    058 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 37337 March 28, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO BORJAL

    058 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 37044 March 29, 1933 - CONSOLACION JUNIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    058 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 36994 March 30, 1933 - EMILIO BOADA v. JUAN POSADAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 35840 March 31, 1933 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA v. MENZI & CO. INC., ET AL.

    058 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 36059 March 31, 1933 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. JACOBA GERONA, ET AL.

    058 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 36965 March 31, 1933 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MATIAS ATILES, ET AL.

    058 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 37673 March 31, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POTENCIANO TANEO

    058 Phil 255