#4 PEOPLE VS.
DE GRANO
GR No. 167710, June 5, 2009
FACTS:
An information for murder committed against Emmanuel Mendoza was filed against Joven de Grano
(Joven), Armando de Grano (Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-
accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides), Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and Leonardo Genil (Leonardo),
who were at-large. Subsequently, the RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged, but during the
promulgation of the decision only Estanislao was present despite due notice to the other respondents.
Respondents subsequently filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration praying that the decision be
reconsidered and a new one be entered acquitting them, which the RTC take cognizance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not all the other accused not present at the promulgation of the decision may avail of the
remedies available in the Rules against the judgment.
RULING:
No, the other accused not present at the promulgation of the decision may not avail of the remedies
available in the Rules against the judgment.
Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be
absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea,
whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c)
at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear
by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be
waived.
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules applicable at the time the
Decision was promulgated, provides:
…If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause,
he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment however, the accused may surrender and
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at
the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be
allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Thus, the RTC erred in not causing the arrest of the other accused and taking cognizance of the Joint
Motion for Reconsideration.
#21 MORILLO VS. PEOPLE
GR No. 198270, December 9, 2015
FACTS:
Respondents Richard Natividad, Milo Malong and Bing Nanquil purchased construction material from
petitioner, Armilyn Morillo amounting to P500,054.00. the respondents paid in cash amounting to
P20,000.00 and issued two post-dated checks for the remaining amount drawn from Metrobank,
Pampanga. Upon maturity, the petitioner attempted to deposit the checks in her bank account in Makati
City but the same were dishonored. Subsequently, the respondents again issued two post-dated checks
but upon presentment the same were again dishonored by the drawee bank. A case for estafa and BP 22
was filed against the respondents before MeTC Makati City, only Natividad was found guilty for the
crime charged which the RTC affirmed. On appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed the decision
of the MeTC and dismissed the case on the ground that MeTC Makati City has no jurisdiction over the
case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the case based on lack of jurisdiction is equivalent to acquittal of the
accused.
RULING:
No. The court stresses that the appellate court’s dismissal of the case is not an acquittal of respondent.
Basic is the rule that a dismissal of the case is different from an acquittal of the accused therein. Except
in a dismissal based on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or for violation of the right of the
accused to speedy trial, the dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will not result in acquittal.
#26 PAYUMO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR No. 151911, July 25, 2011
FACTS:
A composite team of Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National Police units allegedly fired at a
group of civilians instantly killing one civilian and wounding seven others, includes the petitioner Edgar
Payumo. The Sandiganbayan convicted the accused of the crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted
Murder. The accused filed their Supplemental Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial
because there was allegedly serious irregularity during the trial due to the erroneous admission of the
testimonies of the witnesses of the petitioners, such should be taken anew and to afford the accused
the opportunity to present evidence the records of the Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO) relative to
the shooting as to whether it was an ambush or the result of a military operation. The Sandiganbayan
granted the nullified its previous decision and granted the motion for new trial, thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it granted a new trial in
favour of the accused.
RULING:
Yes. A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following
requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such
weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.
It must be emphasized that an erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a
ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the
decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have changed the decision.
It has been held that the mistakes of the attorney as ton the competency of a witness, the sufficiency,
relevancy, materiality or immateriality of a certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof
are not proper grounds for a new trial.
#36 COLINARES VS. PEOPLE
GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011
FACTS:
Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide by the
RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from two years and four months of
prision correctional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the
maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for
probation. On appeal by Colinares, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s decision. Unsatisfied with
the CA’s decision, petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court and took the position that he should
be entitled to probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense
probationable, which was strongly opposed by the Solicitor General. The SC found Colinares guilty of
only attempted homicide.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial court.
RULING:
Yes. The Probation Law, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, requires that an accused must not have
appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. However, the Court’s finding that Arnel
was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for
the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it
would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years
and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
