Dinglasan v. CA

December 5, 2017 | Author: indash101 | Category: Lawsuit, Society, Social Institutions, Judiciaries, Government Information
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Digest- Motion for New Trial...

Description

A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN, JR. vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 145420

September 19, 2006

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS: Before this Court is a Petition for New Trial and, in the alternative, for the Reopening of the Case1 on the ground of newly discovered evidence filed by A. Rafael C. Dinglasan, Jr. (Dinglasan) who was found guilty2 of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62, in Criminal Case No. 21238. The alleged newly discovered evidence claimed by Dinglasan are the affidavits of Ma. Elena Dinglasan, in her capacity as Executive Vice-President and Treasurer of Elmyra, and Ma. Encarnacion Vda. De Dinglasan, the wife of Mariano Dinglasan, who, during his lifetime, was the Cashier and Liaison Officer of the same company. These affidavits, together with the transmittal letter dated 8 October 1985 attached to Solidbank Manager's Check No. 002969 dated 3 October 1985 sent by Ma. Elena Dinglasan to Antrom, tends to prove that Dinglasan made good of the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor. He could not, therefore, be validly convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for one of the essential elements of the offense, that is, the drawer failed and refused to make good the said check within five banking days from the notice of dishonor, is absent.

ISSUE: Whether or not a new trial or reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence should be allowed. HELD: Explicit from the above stated rule that a Motion for New Trial should be filed before the judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final. To rule that finality of judgment shall be reckoned from the receipt of the resolution or order denying the second motion for reconsideration would result to an absurd situation whereby courts will be obliged to issue orders or resolutions denying what is a prohibited motion in the first place, in order that the period for the finality of judgments shall run, thereby, prolonging the disposition of cases. Moreover, such a ruling would allow a party to forestall the running of the period of finality of judgments by virtue of filing a prohibited pleading; such a situation is not only illogical but also unjust to the winning party. It should be emphasized that the applicant for new trial has the burden of showing that the new evidence he seeks to present has complied with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.28 The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the proferred evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence." The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF