GR 145420; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145420 ; September 19, 2006
A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner A. Rafael C. Dinglasan, Jr. was convicted for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) for issuing a check that was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 137800, the denial of which became final and executory. Following the finality of the judgment, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest and a writ of execution. Dinglasan then filed the instant Petition for New Trial, or alternatively, for Reopening of the Case, based on alleged newly discovered evidence.
The purported new evidence consists of a transmittal letter dated October 8, 1985, which Dinglasan claims proves that the dishonored check was merely issued as a guarantee and was subsequently replaced by two manager’s checks before its presentment, thereby negating criminal intent. He argues this evidence is material and would probably alter the judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence should be granted.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent requirements for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. For such a motion to prosper, the evidence must be: (1) discovered after trial; (2) could not have been discovered and produced at trial even with due diligence; (3) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. The Court found that the transmittal letter fails these criteria. Crucially, the evidence was not newly discovered. The records reveal that this letter was already offered as evidence in the appeal before the Court of Appeals and was even annexed to the Petition for Review therein as Annex “B.” Therefore, it was available and could have been presented with due diligence during the earlier proceedings. The Court emphasized that a new trial cannot be used to re-litigate issues or re-examine evidence already considered. Granting the petition would undermine judicial finality and open floodgates to endless reviews, allowing losing litigants to repackage old defenses as new evidence merely to delay execution. The appeal for compassion was unavailing as it was not made in good faith.