ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137758. February 9, 2004]

PEOPLE vs. SUAN

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 9 2004.

G.R. No. 137758 (People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Suan.)

For resolution before the Court is the appellant's Motion for New Trial.

On December 1, 1998, the herein appellant was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the rape of the private complainant April Rose Arnaiz.During the pendency of his appeal before the Court, the appellant filed on March 9, 2000 the instant Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.Appended to the motion is an Affidavit dated February 18, 2000 subscribed by the private complainant April Rose Arnaiz before the office of the Ombudsman-Visayas wherein she declared that her accusations against the appellant are all untrue.She asserted therein that the complaint for rape and her testimony before the trial court were altogether concocted by her father Roel Arnaiz and Alberto Gerolaga against whom the appellant had earlier filed a charge of grave threats.Arnaiz also affirmed that the complaint for acts of lasciviousness filed by Vanessa Gerolaga against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City was also the manipulation of Alberto Gerolaga, the father of Vanessa Gerolaga.These statements were affirmed by Arnaiz when she testified in Criminal Case no. DU-6943, the case for acts of lasciviousness filed by Vanessa Gerolaga against the appellant.Hence, in a Supplemental Motion for New Trial filed on April 25, 2002, the appellant attached certified true copies of the transcript of stenographic notes embodying the aforesaid statements of Arnaiz.The appellant also attached a joint decision dated November 13, 2000 of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas exonerating the appellant from the administrative charges for grave misconduct arising from the same incidents.

In its Comment to the appellant's Motion for New Trial filed on September 15, 2003, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the grant of the motion on the ground that the alleged recantation by Arnaiz did not constitute newly discovered evidence for which a new trial is warranted under the Rules.The OSG also pointed out that the dismissal of the administrative charges against the appellant by the Ombudsman can have no bearing on the instant criminal case the proceedings of which are of a different nature.The appellant reiterated its position in its Reply to the Opposition filed on November 6, 2003.

We deny the motion of the appellant.

It is error for the appellant to insist that the affidavit of April Rose Arnaiz executed before the Ombudsman and her testimony before criminal Case No. DU-6943 retracting on her previous testimony in the case at bar constitute as "newly discovered evidence." Under Rule 121, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of criminal Procedure, the only grounds for new trial are (a) that errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial; (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 changed the judgment.We do not consider the retractions by April Rose Arnaiz of her testimonies previously given in court as "newly discovered evidence." As held in People v. Dalabajan, ^[1] cralaw motions for new trial based on affidavits of recantations or otherwise retraction of testimonies previously given in court are looked upon with disfavor.The rationale for the rule is obvious.Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration.Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable.There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.If new trials were granted every time an interested party succeeds in inducing a witness to change his testimony, there would never be an end to criminal litigation.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the motion for new trial of the appellant.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Div. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw 280 SCRA 696 (1997).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011