ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. Nos. 138268-69. June 15, 1999]

JURRY ANDAL et al. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 15, 1999.

G.R. Nos. 138268-69 (Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal and Edwin Mendoza vs. People of the Philippines, Regional Trial Court of Lemery, Batangas, Branch 5, The Director of Corrections and the Secretary of Justice.)

Submitted for the Court's consideration is petitioners' Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of Execution due to Ongoing Legislative and NBI Investigation of the case if Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal and Edwin Mendoza.

The Omnibus Motion raises the following issues:

1.�������� That the House of Representatives subcommittee on the enhancement or protection of human rights as requested by Director Opinion of the National Bureau of Investigation is investigating the crimes committed on other women of San Luis, Batangas, which appear similar to the crime involved in the case at bar and that the committee needs to locate the "star witness" for the prosecution Olimpio Corrales in order to aid the committee in better appreciating the case and in coming up with legislation on the matter.

2.�������� That it is not too late to conduct a DNA testing;

3.�������� That pre-trial identification of the accused-petitioners violated their constitutional right; and

4.�������� That the failure of the trial counsel of the accused-petitioners to present relevant evidence in their defense violated their right to counsel.

First. The issue of an on-going Congressional investigation of crimes allegedly similar to the one charged against the accused-petitioners, being committed on the women of San Luis, Batangas is irrelevant hereto. Such investigation will not affect the final and executory judgment of this Court. The on-going investigation is based on suspicious and suppositions that cannot overturn a judgment at after a careful consideration of the evidence presented in a court of competent jurisdiction. "suspicion cannot give probative force to testimony which is itself insufficient to establish or justify an inference of a particular fact --- the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass."1 [People vs. Ganaan, 265 SCRA 260.]

Second. The proposed DNA testing of the semen found on the victim Nancy Siscar is not ground to re-open the final judgment in the case at bar. It is not only late and the probability that it will bring about the acquittal of appellants is at best, arguable. The conviction of the accused is based on nothing less than the testimony of an aye-witness whose credibility has been passed upon by the trial court and this Court.

Indeed, we have ruled that 'a witness' testimony ought to be entitled to great weight when the accusing words are directed against a close relative."2 [Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 328.] And in the case at bar, witness Olimpio Corales is a brother-in-law of two of the accused.

Third. The issue of the violation of the constitutional rights of the accused because of the allegedly "tainted" pre-trial identification, has been addressed in our Resolution issued on May 26, 1999. We need not engage in reiterations.

Fourth. We reject the contention that the accused was denied his right to counsel because the counsel failed to present Rufino Andal as one of the witnesses for the defense. "The rule is that the client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The exception is when the negligence of the lawyer or counsel is one so gross, palpable, pervasive, reckless and inexcusable that a party may say he is deprived of his right to counsel."3 [Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 642.] There is no showing that the counsel for the accused committed such kind of negligence.

We stress that the guilt of an accused should he established beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. By our applicable rules of evidence, we find that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless petitioners may raise the foregoing issues, especially the need for DNA test, in a plea for clemency addressed to the President of the Philippines who under the Constitution, is vested with the pardoning power.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we resolve to DENY with finality the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and for stay of execution. We AFFIRM our Resolution of May 26, 1999. Panganiban, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE