GR 52728; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 52728 ; January 17, 1990
AVELINO C. AGULTO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Davao; and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Avelino C. Agulto was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Andrea Suico on December 30, 1968, while his first marriage to Maria Pilar Gaspar remained subsisting. After the trial concluded and both parties had rested their cases, but before the judgment was promulgated, Agulto filed a motion to reopen the trial. He alleged newly discovered evidence: a copy of a marriage contract purportedly showing that Andrea Suico had been previously married to one Romeo Vergeire on July 19, 1960. Agulto argued this evidence would prove his marriage to Suico was void, thereby negating the crime of bigamy.
The trial court denied the motion, finding it was filed too late. The court noted Agulto had been apprised of the alleged prior marriage as early as October 17, 1972, and thus could have discovered and presented the evidence during the trial with due diligence. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Agulto’s petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court’s order. The appellate court also observed critical defects in the proffered evidence, noting the document lacked a seal, did not specify the location of the solemnizing court, was not properly certified, and appeared to have been celebrated without a marriage license.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court gravely abused their discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen the trial for the reception of newly discovered evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the distinction between a motion for new trial and a motion to reopen trial. A motion to reopen is a procedural recourse recognized by usage, permissible after the parties have offered and closed their evidence but before judgment. Its grant or denial rests entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court, controllable only by the paramount interest of justice, and is not reviewable on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.
In this case, the trial court’s discretion was not abused. First, the motion was dilatory, as the petitioner knew of the alleged prior marriage years before the trial ended. Second, the purported newly discovered evidence was inherently unreliable. The document was facially defective, lacking essential formalities like a seal, proper certification, and indications of a marriage license and location. Even assuming its validity, it did not prove that Suico’s first marriage still existed at the time of her marriage to Agulto, which is essential for his defense. The prosecution’s decision not to charge Suico with bigamy further suggested the fiscal found no impediment on her part. The prolonged fourteen-year delay underscored the motion’s dilatory character. Therefore, the denial of the motion to reopen was proper.