Anda di halaman 1dari 2


G.R. No. L-48656FERNAN; December 21, 1987

Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Zamboangadel Norte, Br. 1.
- A m p a r a d o w a s f o u n d g u i l t y b y t h e C F I f o r t h e murder of Manuel Magnahoy
and was sentenced tosuffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua
and to paythe heirs of the victim the sum of P12k. On appeal,this Court affirmed said
judgment but increased thecivil liability to P30k.- He now seeks a new trial, citing as
grounds: [1] thediscovery of new and material evidence [2] errors
of l a w o r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l prejudicial to his
substantive rights as an accused;and, [3] interest of substantial justice and avoidanceof
a failure of justice.- The newly-discovered evidence relied upon byaccusedappellant consists of the testimonies of Antonio Cachin Jr., Manuel Henry Auza
and VioletaAmparado.- A s c o n t e n d e d b y t h e S o l G e n , t h e
t e s t i m o n y o f Violeta Amparado could not be considered as newlyd i s c o v e r e d n o r c o u l d i t m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e judgment, said testimony
being merely cumulative incharacter.- The proposed testimonies of Antonio Cachin Jr.,
andManuel Henry Auza are explained in the accused-appellants affidavit
attached to the motion underconsideration.- T h e e v i d e n c e
o n r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t A m p a r a d o stabbed Maghanoy by means of treachery, while
thelatter was walking in the road. Amparado claimed itwas self-defense and it happened in
the house wherehe was staying as a boarder. He explained that evenwith the use of
reasonable diligence, he and hisl a w y e r w e r e n o t
a b l e t o p r e s e n t a s w i t n e s s a n y person who first rendered assistance to the
victim,nor any person who was in the road because he didnot know that there were such
other people. Hesimply went inside the house after the incident andwas apprehended by
the police there. He could notgo back to the scene of the crime because the familyand
relatives of the victim were hunting him. He firstdiscovered that the two witnesses were
present inthe road in front of the house after he received a copy of the decision of
the Supreme Court, when hewent to Dipolog to look for a lawyer for an advice. There
he met Roseller Ladera, a prosecution
witness.A m p a r a d o t o l d L a d e r a t h a t h e w a s c o n v i c t e d because of the
testimony of another prosecutionwitness, Rogelio Patangan. Ladera told
him thatbased on what he knew Patangan was not present during the incident, it was
a certain Antonio Cachin Jr. and his companion who were present. Thereafter,he exerted
earnest effort to contact Antonio Cachin Jr, who related to him everything about the
incidentand told him farther that he and Manuel Henry Auzawere there present and they
were the first personswho were able to render assistance to Maghanoy andthat Patangan
was not there present.
WON the evidence presented is newly-discovered
- The evidence sought to be presented by accused-appellant conforms to
the requisites laid down bySection 2[b] of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.
Thetestimonies are newly-discovered and of sufficientweight and character as to alter the
outcome of thecase.- The proposed testimonies of Antonio Cachin Jr. andManuel Henry
Auza, who aver to be the first personsto render assistance to the victim immediately afterthe
stabbing incident, if admitted, would tend toshow that the alleged eyewitness Rogelio

Patangan,whose version of the crime was given full faith andcredence by the trial court
and sustained by thisCourt, was not present at the scene of the crime.
If this is true, then, the version of the prosecutionmight perforce fail and that of the
defense prevail.Consequently, the judgment of conviction could bereversed, or at the very
least, modified.
Motion for new trial granted. Theevidence already taken shall st
a n d a n d t h e testimonies of Antonio Cachin Jr. and Manuel HenryAuza and such other
evidence of both prosecution and defense as the trial court may in the interest of justice
allow to be introduced, shall be taken andconsidered with the evidence already in the
record,and a new judgment thereafter rendered by thelower court
----------------------------------------------People v. City Court of Manila
Facts: On Oct. 17, 1972, Diolito dela Cruz figured in an accident. The next day an info for serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence (SPIRI) was filed against private respondent driver of the
truck. On Oct. 18, the victim died. On Oct. 20, private respondent was arraigned on the charge of
SPIRI; he pleaded guilty. On Oct. 24, an info for homicide thru reckless imprudence (HRI) was filed
against private respondent. On Nov. 17 city court of Mla dismissed above info on the ground of
double jeopardy.
Issue: WON there was double jeopardy.
Ruling: Where the victim of an accident died 2 days prior to the arraignment of the accused who
pleaded guilty to an info for SPIRI, he can no longer be charged with HRI as no new fact
supervened after the arraignment.
Molo v. People held that where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after
conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put
him twice in jeopardy. Above case not applicable in the instant case because there was no
supervening event.