G.R. No. 109870. December 1, 1995
EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edilberto M. Cuenca was convicted for violating the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115). The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and the Supreme Court initially denied his petition for review. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and excusable negligence. He attached an affidavit from his brother, Rodolfo Cuenca, who was the former President of Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP). In the affidavit, Rodolfo claimed he instructed petitioner, as President of Ultra International Trading Corporation, to purchase steel materials for CDCP, which were covered by the subject trust receipts. He asserted that petitioner acted merely as an agent, that CDCP’s cashflow problems prevented payment, and that he personally controlled the treasurer who withheld payment. Rodolfo accepted responsibility and offered to pay the civil obligations.
The Supreme Court initially denied the motion for leave, noting the petition had already been denied. However, petitioner persisted by filing a motion to admit the motion for new trial. The Solicitor General, in his Comment, recommended granting a new trial, characterizing Rodolfo’s sworn statement as a declaration against interest that could exonerate petitioner. The Solicitor General emphasized the prosecutor’s duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to see that justice is done, not merely to secure a conviction.

ISSUE

Whether a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be granted by the Supreme Court after it has already denied a petition for review of a conviction.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the motion for new trial. The Court acknowledged the general rule, as stated in Goduco v. CA, that it cannot entertain a motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence in an appeal by certiorari, as such motions involve questions of fact beyond its jurisdiction. However, the Court noted this rule has been relaxed in subsequent jurisprudence, such as Helmuth, Jr. v. People and People v. Amparado, where technicalities were set aside to grant new trials in the interest of justice when newly discovered evidence could potentially reverse a conviction.
The legal logic proceeds from the principle that procedural rules should serve justice. The affidavit of Rodolfo Cuenca constitutes a declaration against penal interest, which is a recognized exception to the hearsay rule and merits judicial scrutiny. Crucially, the Solicitor General, representing the People, did not oppose but recommended the new trial, aligning with the prosecutor’s paramount duty to ensure justice is served. This concurrence by the state’s counsel significantly bolstered the plea for a re-examination of the facts. Therefore, the Court, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural rigidity, granted the motion and ordered the case remanded to the court of origin for reception of the newly discovered evidence.