ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137141. October 10, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. ALEJANDRO PADUA y CABALQUE�TO, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2000.

G.R. No. 137141(The People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Padua y Cabalque�to @ Andoy Padua, Christopher Padua y Videna @ Popop Padua, and Michael Dullavin y Valencia @ Mike or Meke.)

Accused-appellant Michael Dullavin y Valencia, together with two others was found guilty of the crime of rape with homicide in Criminal Case No. 0055-SPL and was sentenced to suffer the death penalty.

Considering the penalty imposed, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review.

However, before the record could be forwarded to the Court, the three accused filed a joint motion for new trial which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, an urgent motion for leave of court to allow the accused to submit newly discovered evidence was filed but this was not acted upon as the record of the case had already been forwarded to the Court.

Thus, accused Dullavin filed the instant Omnibus Motion praying for the issuance of an order directing the trial court to allow the three accused to present newly discovered evidence consisting of certifications from the barangay captain of Bayanan, Muntinlupa City (the place where the crime was perpetrated), police blotters, barangay logbooks and sworn statements of proposed witnesses claiming that the victim was seen by them somewhere other than the vicinity where her body was found.

The only grounds for new trial are: (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 (People vs. Dalabajan, 280 SCRA 696 ).

Corollarily, newly discovered evidence, in order to warrant a new trial, must meet three requirements, viz: (1) it must be discovered after trial; (2) it could not have been discovered and produced at the trial despite reasonable diligence; and (3) if presented, it would probably alter the results of the action (People vs. Leangsiri, 252 SCRA 213 [1998]).

Regrettably, accused-appellants' supposed evidence can not be considered as newly discovered. In order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as "newly discovered" for purposes of a grant of a new trial, what is essential is not so much the time the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time it first came to the knowledge of the party proposing to submit it. More than that, what is essential is that the proponent had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial, but had nonetheless failed to secure it (Pantig vs. Baltazar, 191 SCRA 830; Garrido vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 450 [1992]). In the case at hand, no showing in this regard has been established.

WHEREFORE, the motion for new trial is denied and accused-appellants are hereby directed to file their brief within 90 days from notice hereof.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE