JOSE C. LUCIANO, PETITIONER, VS.

MAXIMO ESTRELLA, TEOTIMO GEALOGO, JUSTINO VENTURA, PEDRO ISON, IGNACIO BABASA, BERNARDO NONATO, PROVINCIAL FISCAL B. JOSE CASTILLO, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH VI, PASIG, RIZAL, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. No. L-31622, August 31, 1970 ] REYES, J.B.L., J.: Private respondents and several other people were charged with violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices for conspiring and confederating together, on behalf of the unicipal Govern!ent of a"ati, Ri#al, enter into a contract or transaction with the $%P %nterprises, represented b& $ose Gutierre# and 'ranco A( Gutierre#, for the deliver& and installation b& the $%P %nterprises to the unicipal Govern!ent of a"ati, Ri#al of traffic deflectors( Private Respondents were pronounced guilt& as charged, and each was sentenced to a prison ter! of ) &ears, with perpetual dis*ualification to hold public office( Appellants %strella, et al(, filed in the Court of Appeals a !otion for new trial, based allegedl& on newl& discovered and !aterial evidence( +he Court of Appeals granted the !otion for new trial and ordered the re!and of the case to the court a *uo for new trial( As special defense, the& clai!ed that the petitioner had neither personalit& to institute the proceedings nor has an& cause of action, that onl& the People of the Philippines could do so, that the grant of new trial has beco!e final and e-ecutor&, and that certiorari and prohibition are not a substitute for ti!el& appeal( .ssue/ 0hether or not a new trial could be co!!enced for the newl& discovered !aterial evidence(

Repu !"# o$ "ts go%e$&'e&t, "s usu(!!) &ot estoppe* ) '"st(+e o$ e$$o$ o& t,e p($t o"ts o--"#"(!s o$ (ge&ts( oreover, the correctness, validit& and legalit& of a grant of new
1eld/ .t is a well "nown and settled rule in our 2urisdiction that the trial in a cri!inal case do not depend upon the consent of the parties thereto, but upon the grant being !ade confor!abl& to the prescriptions of the Rules of Court and the applicable 2urisprudence( 0ith these violations of the Rules of Court thus !ade patent, we have no alternative but to conclude that the grant of the !otion for new trial b& the Court of Appeals was !ade, not onl& in error, but with grave abuse of discretion a!ounting to e-cess of 2urisdiction( 0e are left with no alternative but to disavow and set aside the actuations of the Appeals Court( +he writ pra&ed for is granted and the order of the Court of Appeals granting a new trial for newl& discovered evidence(