ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 133735-36. December 12, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. LORENZO DIAZ SR.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2000.

G.R. Nos. 133735-36 (The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Diaz, Sr.)

For resolution is a motion, entitled Manifestation with Prayer, dated November 9, 2000, filed by accused-appellant Lorenzo Diaz, Sr. to be allowed to present the testimonies of additional witnesses and for a reconsideration of the decision in this case.

On August 9, 2000, this Court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and imposing upon him the penalties of reclusion perpetua and death for the rapes of his daughters, Anniely and Lanie Diaz, respectively. Accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration which, in a resolution, dated October 10, 2000, the Court denied with finality because (1) the basic issues raised therein have already been passed upon in the decision and (2) no substantial arguments were presented to warrant its reversal.

Accused-appellant now seeks permission to present the following witnesses to reveal the truth about the circumstances of his case: (1) Mr. Lito Ladra; (2) Mr. Rey Latu�o; and (3) Mrs. Florita Dela Cruz. He alleges that he was unable to present these witnesses because he did not have access to them and vice-versa and that he had no opportunity to present them because he was prevented from doing so due to the inhuman treatment he received from the jail personnel as well as from some close kin. He also alleges that he could not have raped his daughters, Anniely and Lanie Diaz, because they were never in his custody as they stayed with his wife's relatives. He reiterates that the charges against him were fabricated and manufactured by his wife, Nimfa Almencion Diaz, to cover up her illicit relations with a certain Nolito Gatso.

We find accused-appellant's contentions to be without merit.

This is actually a motion for a new trial. For a new trial to be granted, it must be grounded on the following:

(a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused:

(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if introduced and admitted, would probably change the judgment. (Rule 121, Sec. 2 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure)

Since accused-appellant does not allege any irregularities in the conduct of his trial, it may be assumed that he is seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. But for newly discovered evidence to be a ground for a motion for new trial, the following requisites must concur: (a) the evidence is discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of due diligence; and (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that, if admitted, could probably change the judgment (People v. Ebias, G.R. No. 127130, October 12, 2000).

None of these requisites is present in this case. Accused-appellant stated that all of these supposed additional witnesses have their addresses at "Spring Valley, Buhangin, Davao City." (Manifestation with Prayer, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 126-127) A review of the records of this case reveals that accused-appellant and his daughters used to reside in the same area as these witnesses. (TSN, p. 2, April 4, 1997) There is no reason why, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, these witnesses could not have been procured. Even if accused-appellant was detained during his trial, this fact could not have prevented him or his lawyer from contacting these witnesses and securing their attendance at the trial through various court processes. Instead, accused-appellant offers their testimonies at the last minute on the pretext that these people are aware of the "actual truth" regarding his case. But as to the substance of their testimonies, accused-appellant does not even specify what facts and circumstances these witnesses would testify to. In fact, not even a single affidavit executed by any of these supposed witnesses has been attached by accused-appellant in his Manifestation with Prayer to verify that any of them could present evidence exculpating accused-appellant from the charges against him.

What is undeniable is that accused-appellant was accorded a fair trial with the full opportunity to present evidence in his defense. "[I]f an accused has been proceeded against under an orderly process of law, and only punished after inquiry or investigation upon notice to him, with opportunity to be heard, and a judgment rendered within the authority of the constitutional law, then he has had due process." (People v. Tomio, 202 SCRA 77, 95 (1991)) Accused-appellant did not question the proceedings during the trial. Nor did he complain against the manner the trial was conducted. Instead, he participated actively through counsel in the proceedings before the court, offering his own testimony in his defense. What is more believable is that his failure to present the testimonies of these supposed witnesses means only that they know nothing of relevance about the charges against him by his daughters. He cannot, therefore, be allowed so late in the day to frustrate the judgment against him, which was reached only after a full and fair trial.

Accused-appellant contends that he could not have raped his daughters because they were never in his custody but stayed with his wife's relatives. Such allegation is contrary to his own testimony that he alone brought up his children after his wife left them in 1994. (TSN, p. 3, April 4, 1997) The change in accused-appellant's defense cannot be taken in any other light than a last-ditch desperate effort to delay the execution of the judgment against him.

As for his final allegation that the criminal cases filed against him were merely manufactured by his wife, suffice it to say that such contention has already been passed upon in the main decision in this case and need not be discussed again in this resolution.

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant's Manifestation with Prayer is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE