GR L 31622; (August, 1970) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-31622, August 31, 1970
JOSE C. LUCIANO, Petitioner, v. MAXIMO ESTRELLA, TEOTIMO GEALOGO, JUSTINO VENTURA, PEDRO ISON, IGNACIO BABASA, BERNARDO NONATO, PROVINCIAL FISCAL B. JOSE CASTILLO, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH VI, PASIG, RIZAL, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 18, 1969, an information was filed charging Maximo Estrella (then Municipal Mayor of Makati), several municipal councilors, and other public and private individuals with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The charge stemmed from a contract entered into on or about July 26, 1967, for the purchase of 59 traffic deflectors for the Municipality of Makati, which was alleged to be manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision on May 17, 1969, convicting Mayor Estrella and several others, sentencing them to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordering their removal from office. The convicted accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 10250-CR). On November 28, 1969, the appellants filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, consisting of an affidavit from Acting Provincial Auditor Conrado S. Declaro stating that at the time of the contract, the municipality had an overdraft and no available funds, and that the contract lacked the required certification on the availability of funds. The Solicitor General initially offered no objection to the motion. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for new trial on January 31, 1970, and ordered the case remanded to the trial court. On February 9, 1970, the appellate court declared its order final and directed the immediate remand of the records. Jose C. Luciano, the Acting Mayor of Makati, filed the present petition to question the validity of the Court of Appeals’ orders granting a new trial and to forestall the alleged impending usurpation of his position by the suspended mayor.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ and set aside the orders of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the grant of a new trial was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The requirements for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under the Rules of Court were not satisfied. Specifically, the alleged evidence (the lack of funds and absence of a treasurer’s certification) could have been discovered before the trial court’s decision through the exercise of due diligence, as it was based on public records. Furthermore, the evidence was not of such character as would probably change the result of the case, as the crime under the Anti-Graft Law is consummated by entering into a transaction manifestly disadvantageous to the government, regardless of the contract’s validity or the availability of funds. The Court also noted that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the new evidence together with the evidence already on record, as required by the rules, especially since the testimonial evidence from the original trial was not yet transcribed when the motion was granted. Consequently, the orders granting a new trial and remanding the records were revoked, and the Court of Appeals was instructed to proceed with the criminal case. The preliminary injunctions were made permanent.