Ponente: Sereno, J.
FACTS:
·
Ruben Bernardo was killed on the eve of May 3,
1994 during the town fiesta of Barangay Talabaan in Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro. Five men, all surnamed Tadeja, were charged with homicide (Criminal
Case No. Z-814). Meanwhile, one of the Tadejas filed a criminal case for
frustrated homicide against the two sons of the victim (Criminal Case No.
Z-815). These cases were later consolidated.
·
According to the witnesses of the prosecution
in Criminal Case No. Z-814, the five Tadejas, armed with bolos and sanggots,
hacked the victim to death. The accused denied the charge against them and
interposed alibis as defenses.
·
After the joint hearing, the trial court ruled
against the accused and found them guilty of homicide. The trial court also
acquitted the sons of the victim in the charge filed against them.
·
Four of the five Tadejas filed an appeal
before the CA, claiming that the trial court failed to consider the testimonies
of the witnesses presented. It was their posture that the testimonies of said
witnesses (both appearing for the Bernardos, as prosecution witnesses in Z-814
and defense witnesses in Z-814) contradicted each other on material and
substantial matters. The Tadejas claimed that one of the witnesses' testimony
showed that Ruben Bernardo was completely alone when found wounded, which was
contrary to the statement of the other witnesses. They claimed that this
inconsistency could have entitled them to an acquittal.
·
CA: Appeal denied on the ground that the
testimonies of the defense witnesses in Criminal Case No. Z-815 do not
adversely affect the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in Criminal Case
No. Z-814.
·
SC: Affirmed CA. Denied petitioners’ subsequent
Motion for Reconsideration, Motion with Leave of Court to Vacate Judgment, and
Second Motion for Reconsideration.
·
Following the SC’s ruling in 2006, one of the
convicted men, Plaridel, executed a confession that it was him who killed
Ruben. This prompted the other convicted to file a Motion to Vacate Judgment
Due to Supervening Event. The other convicted men argued that Plaridel’s
confession was a newly discovered evidence that warranted the reopening of the
case.
RULING:
Whether
Plaridel's confession after being convicted can be considered newly discovered
evidence that warrants the reopening of the case. – NO.
·
Petitioners premise their motion for a new
trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Newly discovered evidence
refers to that which (a) is discovered after trial; (b) could not have been
discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is
of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.
·
The most important requisite is that the
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with
reasonable diligence; hence, the term "newly discovered." The
confession of Plaridel does not meet this requisite. He participated in the
trial before the RTC and even gave testimony as to his defense. It was only
after he and petitioners had been convicted by the trial court that he
absconded. Thus, the contention that his confession could not have been
obtained during trial does not hold water.
·
Additionally, Plaridel's confession
contradicted the testimonies of the other witnesses and the other convicted
men.
·
Given the foregoing, there's no reason to
disturb the previous rulings of the SC regarding the conviction of the Tadejas.
Whether
the CA erred in failing to reconcile the testimonies of the witnesses, which
testimonies allegedly contradicted each other on material and substantial
matters. – NO.
·
While the Tadejas are correct in asserting
that the totality of the evidence in Criminal Cases No. Z-814 and Z-815 should
have been taken into consideration because the trial thereof was conducted
jointly, such testimonies, even if given due consideration, would not alter the
trial court's finding of conviction.
·
After looking at the portion of the testimony
of the witnesses, which the Tadejas have provided, the SC itself does not see any
indication of the alleged contradiction. Moreover, the Tadejas failed to impute
improper or evil motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely testify against
them.
·
Nonetheless, in the interest of justice and
bearing in mind that the liberty of the Tadejas is at stake, the Court has seen
fit to delve into the records of this case, as well as the transcripts of
stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before the
trial court in the joint trial of Criminal Case No. Z-814 and Criminal Case
Z-815. Sadly, after a perusal of these transcripts, the Court is inclined to
agree with the CA that there is, indeed, nothing therein to overcome the
positive testimony of the prosecution's eye-witnesses who were found credible
by the trial court.
·
It is clear that the testimonies of the
witnesses for the Bernardos in both cases are more logical and straightforward,
hence more worthy of belief.