Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414 Case Digest (Criminal Procedure)
Criminal Procedure Case Digest Callangan v. People G.R. No. 153414, June 27, 2006 New Trial or Reconsideration S...
Callangan v. People G.R. No. 153414, June 27, 2006 New Trial or Reconsideration See: Rule 121 Section 6 (Efects o granting a new trial or reconsideration) FACTS: Petitioner was found guilty of the crime of perjury. She led a timely motion for new trial on the ground that she was deprived of her day in court because of the gross negligence of her counsel, Atty. Atty. Valmonte, and his utter lack of diligence in the performance of his duty to represent her in every stage of the suit. She attributed the following omissions omissions to her counsel !. failure to le the demurrer to evidence despite leave of court previously granted" #. fail failur ure e to info inform rm his his clie client nt of the the orde orderr of the the cour courtt cons consid ider erin ing g the the intended demurrer to evidence as abandoned" $. failure to attend the hearing for the reception of the evidence for the defense despite notice, which failure was deemed by the %&' as a waiver of petitioner(s right to present her evidence" ). failure to seek proper relief from the adverse e*ects of said orders" +. failure to appear on the promulgation of judgment &he %&' denied the motion for new trial. t held that the ground ground invoked by petitioner was not among those provided in the -ules of 'ourt for new trial in criminal criminal cases. cases. Petition Petitioner er sought sought the reconsi reconsidera deration tion of the order order but the same was also denied. Aggrieved, petitioner uestioned the orders denying petitioner(s motion for new trial of the %&' by ling a petition for certiorari with the -&'/Pasig 'ity. &he -&' -&' dismissed the petition on the ground that the remedy of appeal was still available to petitioner. t also ruled that the %&' did not commit any abuse of discretion in issuing the orders assailed by petitioner. Petit Petition ioner er moved moved for reco reconsi nsider derati ation on but the -&' denied denied it. 0ence, 0ence, this this petition. Petitioner insists that its resort to a petition for certiorari under -ule 1+ to impugn the order denying its motion for new trial was proper. She also clai claims ms that that the the -&' err erred in decl declar arin ing g that that the the %&' %&' did did not not abus abuse e its its discretion when it denied her motion for new trial.
SS!"S: !2 3heth 3hether er or not a petiti petition on for certior certiorar arii and not appeal appeal,, is the proper proper remedy for relief from the denial of a motion for new trial #2 3hether or not the %&' committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial
1& 'e(. An o)*e) *en+ng a -oon /o) ne )al anno e e (ue o/ an appeal. Te p)ope) )e-e*+ agan( (u an o)*e) ( a peon /o) /o) e) e)o o)a )a) ) un*e un*e) ) Rule Rule 65 on e e g)ou g)oun* n* o/ g)av g)ave e au( au(e e o/ *()eon a-ounng o la o) ee(( o/ u)(*on. -ule )!, Section ! of the -ules of 'ourt provides that no appeal may be taken from from an orde orderr deny denyin ing g a moti motion on for for new new tria trial. l. Such Such nal nal orde orderr is not not appeal appealabl able. e. n such such a case, case, the aggrie aggrieved ved party party may le le an appr approp opria riate te specia speciall civil civil actio action n under under -ule ule 1+ of the the -ules ules of 'ourt. 'ourt. 3hile this rule rule pertains to civil cases, there is no cogent reason why the same principle cannot be applied in criminal cases. &hus, in criminal cases, the special civil action for certiorari under -ule 1+ is a proper remedy to uestion an order denying a motion for new trial.
2& No. Te)e a( no g)ave au(e o/ *()eon on e pa) o/ e TC en ((ue* e o)*e) *en+ng peone)8( -oon /o) ne )al. &he records of the case are bereft of any indication that the judge arbitrarily, despotic despotically ally or delibera deliberately tely failed failed to a*ord a*ord petitione petitionerr her constitu constitutiona tionally lly mandated right to be heard. &he cause of petitioner(s travails and misfortune was the negligence of her own counsel. 0owever, in view of the circumstances of this case, outright deprivation of libert liberty y will will be the conse conseuen uence ce of petiti petitione oner( r(s s crimin criminal al convic convictio tion n based based solely on the evidence for the prosecution. &hus, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to give meaning to the due process process clause of the 'onstitution, 'onstitution, the 'ourt deems it wise to allow petitioner to present evidence in her defense. &he rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of e4ceptions. &he recogni5ed recogni5ed e4ceptions e4ceptions are 6!2 where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, 6#2 when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client(s liberty or property or 6$2 where the interests of justice so reuire. n such cases, courts must step in and accord relief to a party/litigant. &he omissions of petitioner(s counsel amounted to an abandonment or total disregard of her case. &hey show conscious indi*erence to or utter disregard of the possib possible le reper repercus cussio sions ns to his client client.. &hus, &hus, the chro chronic nic inacti inaction on of petit petition ioner( er(s s counse counsell on impor importan tantt incide incidents nts and stages stages of the crimi criminal nal proceedings constituted gross negligence. &he -&' itself found that petitioner never had the chance to present her defense because of the nonfeasance 6malfeasance, even2 of her counsel. t also concluded that, e*ectively, she was without counsel. 'onsidering these ndings, to deprive petitioner of her liberty without a*ording her the right to be assisted by counsel is to deny her due process. &herefore, &herefore, in consonance consonance with the demands of justice and to prevent any outright deprivation of liberty, the 'ourt deems it best to give petitioner a chance to present evidence in her defense. &he case should be remanded to
the %&' for acceptance and appraisal of petitioner(s evidence. Petitioner does not seek seek her e4one e4onerat ration ion but the the opport opportun unity ity to prese present nt eviden evidence ce in her defens defense. e. 'onsid 'onsideri ering ng the gross gross neglig negligenc ence e of her counse counsell on whom whom she she reposed her trust to protect her rights, justice demands that she be given that chance. n sum, sum, it is better better to allow allow petiti petitione onerr anothe anotherr occasi occasion on to prese present nt her evidence than to let her conviction stand based solely on the evidence of the prosecution. prosecution. n accordance accordance with -ule !#!, Section 1 of the -ules of 'ourt, the evidence of the prosecution shall be understood preserved, subject to the right of the prosecution to supplement it and7or to rebut the evidence which petitioner may present. &he petition was 8-A9&:;. 8-A9&:;. &he ;ecision of the -&' and orders of the %&'/ %&'/ Pasig 'ity were S:& AS;:. &his case was -:%A9;:; to the %&'/Pasig 'ity for a new trial for the purpose of allowing petitioner to present evidence in her defense with directive to the court to decide the case with deliberate speed.
RAT RAT9: 9: Rule Rule 121 121 Se Seo on n 6. " "e e( ( o/ g)an g)an ng ng a ne ne )a )all o) )eon(*e)aon. The efects o granting a new trial or reconsideration reconsideration are the ollowing: (a) When a new trial is granted on the ground o errors o law or irregulari irregularities ties committed committed during during the trial trial all the !roceed !roceedings ings and e"idence afected there#$ shall #e set aside and ta%en anew& The cour courtt ma$ ma$ in the the inte intere rest st o 'ust 'ustic ice e allo allow w the the intr introd oduc ucti tion on o additional e"idence& (#) When a new trial is granted on the ground o newl$disco"ered e"idence the e"idence alread$ adduced shall stand and the newl$ disco"ered and such other e"idence as the court ma$ in the interest o 'ustic 'ustice e allow allow to #e introd introduce uced d shall shall #e ta%en ta%en and consi conside dered red together with the e"idence alread$ in the record& (c) n all cases when the court grants new trial or reconsideration the the orig origin inal al 'udg 'udgme ment nt shal shalll #e set set asid aside e or "aca "acate ted d and and a new new 'udgment rendered rendered accordingl$ accordingl$&&