GR L 69422; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-69422 & G.R. No. 69960, May 29, 1987
DOMICIANO CABIGAO, et al., appellants-petitioners, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, some of whom were members of the Integrated National Police, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder. The charges stemmed from a February 26, 1980 incident in Zambales where a group, allegedly including the petitioners and PC soldiers, indiscriminately fired upon a jeep, killing Amante Payumo and inflicting serious injuries on several other passengers. After their conviction and the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed a motion for new trial with the Sandiganbayan based on newly discovered evidence and denial of due process. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion solely on the jurisdictional ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after the petitioners had perfected their appeal. The petitioners subsequently elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the motion for new trial on jurisdictional grounds and whether a new trial is warranted under the circumstances of the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Sandiganbayan’s decision, and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan incorrectly denied the motion for new trial based on lack of jurisdiction. While a trial court generally loses jurisdiction upon the perfection of an appeal, an exception exists for motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which can be filed even after an appeal has been taken, provided they are first presented in the appellate court. The Supreme Court, as the reviewing body, has the authority to receive such evidence and order a new trial if justified.
The legal logic for granting a new trial was anchored on several compelling factors. First, the Court found serious allegations meriting closer examination, including that the PC soldiers who led the operation were never prosecuted, while the petitioners, who claimed to have arrived hours later as reinforcements, were convicted. Second, the newly discovered evidence, consisting of affidavits from witnesses like Narciso Boda and Perlita de Leon, was deemed material and relevant to the defense. Third, the Court noted a procedural irregularity in the Sandiganbayan’s conduct, criticizing the frequent rotation of justices during the trial as bordering on unfairness, as it risked having a case decided by justices who did not hear all the evidence. The confluence of these circumstances—potential newly discovered evidence, serious factual allegations, and procedural concerns—convinced the Court, in agreement with the Solicitor General’s recommendation, that the interests of justice would be best served by remanding the case for a new trial to ensure a full and fair determination of the facts.