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 affirmed the denial, also observing that the proffered document was a defective xerox copy lacking proper certification, authentication, a seal, and details on the place of celebration, and it appeared to have been solemnized without a marriage license.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court gravely abused their discretion in denying the motion to reopen the trial for the reception of newly discovered evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled there was 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 presented after the parties have offered and closed their evidence but before judgment, and its grant rests entirely on the sound discretion of the trial court, controlled by the paramount interests of justice. Such discretion will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.
In this case, the trial court’s denial was justified. First, the alleged evidence was not newly discovered, as Agulto had knowledge of the facts underlying it years before the trial ended. Second, the proffered document was facially unreliable and defective, failing to establish a valid prior marriage that was still subsisting at the time of Agulto’s marriage to Suico. The Court noted the fiscal’s decision not to charge Suico with bigamy indicated she was found under no legal impediment. The motion bore the earmarks of a dilatory tactic, which had already succeeded in delaying the case for fourteen years. Consequently, no abuse of discretion attended the lower courts’ rulings, and the petition was denied.