Myline Cordial

Lorenzo Jose vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines
G.R. No. L-38581 March 31, 1976

FACTS:
Petitioner Lorenzo Jose was arrested on February 8, 1968 for possessing hand grenade. He was convicted of illegal possession of explosives and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five years. After promulgation of the judgment, petitioner, on that same day filed his notice of appeal. Nine days thereafter, he filed a motion praying that the case be reopened to permit him to present (1) the written permit of petitioner to possess and use handgrenade, and (2) the written appointment of petitioner as PC agent with Code No. P-36-68 and Code Name ‘Safari’. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the perfection of the appeal by the accused. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and denied the motion for new trial because the evidence sought to be introduced by him at the new trial is not newly discovered evidence as both documents are dated January 31, 1968.

ISSUE:
Should the petitioner’s motion for new trial be granted and also, the documents which are not newly discovered be admitted in evidence?

RULING:
Yes. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial. This is an exception to the general rule that new trial may only be granted if there is newly discovered evidence. The evidence sought to be presented by the petitioner do not fall under the category of newly-discovered evidence because his alleged appointment as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary and a permit to possess a handgrenade were supposed to be known to petitioner and existing at the time of trial and not discovered only thereafter. For a new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) it must go to the merits as ought to produce a different result if admitted:

However, under Sec. 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which provides that upon appeal, the appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Court of First Instance for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case on the ground of substantial justice.

In the present case petitioner claimed that he was an agent of the Philippine Constabulary with a permit to possess explosives such as the handgrenade in question. However, he found himself in a situation where he had to make a choice to reveal his identity as an undercover agent of the Philippine Constabulary assigned to perform intelligence work on subversive activities and face possible reprisals or even liquidation at the hands of the dissidents considering that Floridablanca, the site of the incident, was in the heart of “Huklandia”, or ride on the hope of a possible exoneration or acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution. Without revealing his identity as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary, he claimed before the trial judge that he had a permit to possess the handgrenade and prayed for time to present the same. The permit however could not be produced because it would reveal his intelligence work activities. The Court held that these circumstances justifies a reopening of the case to afford the petitioner the opportunity of producing exculpating evidence.

Full text: Jose vs. CA and People G.R. No. L-38581 March 31, 1976