G.R. No. L-32080. May 22, 1975.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., defendants, AGUSTIN ALQUIZAR and MARCELO LOZANO, appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Agustin Alquizar and Marcelo Lozano, were convicted by the Criminal Circuit Court of Zamboanga del Sur. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court discovered that the stenographic notes from the trial had been lost due to the death of the stenographer in a sea accident. Consequently, the Court, in a 1970 resolution, remanded the case to the trial court for the specific purpose of reconstituting or retaking the testimonies of the ten witnesses involved. This procedure was aligned with established precedent for handling lost stenographic notes.
While the reconstitution process was pending, the appellants filed a motion in 1974. They sought permission to present a new witness, Patricio Barrera, and other witnesses during the retaking of testimonies. More significantly, they moved for a new trial or retrial based on a sworn affidavit executed by Barrera in December 1973. In this affidavit, Barrera exculpated the appellants by claiming that he and his companions were the actual perpetrators of the crime for which Alquizar and Lozano had been convicted.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants are entitled to a new trial or retrial based on the newly discovered affidavit of Patricio Barrera, and whether they should be allowed to present new witnesses during the court-ordered reconstitution of testimonies.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for a new trial but granted, with conditions, the request to present substitute witnesses during the reconstitution. The Court drew a clear legal distinction between the remedy for lost stenographic notes and the grounds for a new trial. Citing People vs. Castelo, the Court reiterated that the loss of trial notes necessitates the reconstitution or retaking of the original testimonies, not a completely new trial. A new trial is warranted only when the decision itself is lost and irrecoverable.
The Court expressly discredited Barrera’s affidavit as a basis for a new trial. It characterized such affidavits, where a fellow prisoner assumes full responsibility for a crime, as inherently unreliable and a familiar scheme. The Court cited People vs. Francisco, noting that where evidence against an accused is overwhelming, little weight should be given to affidavits from individuals already serving long sentences, as they have little to lose and such declarations are often made for a monetary consideration or other schemes, with the affiant likely to later repudiate the statement.
However, the Court allowed for the possibility of substituting witnesses during the reconstitution hearing, but only under strict conditions: the Provincial Fiscal must certify that the original witness is unavailable, and the substance of the original testimony must not be altered. The Court ordered that the new stenographic notes from this proceeding be transcribed and filed within thirty days. Thus, the appeal process would continue based on the reconstituted record, not a retrial on new evidence.