Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15776 November 29, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ADOLFO SAEZ, defendant-appellant.
Pelaez and Jalandoni for defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
DIZON, J.:
The matter before us is appellant's motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The newly discovered evidence is a sworn statement of one Roman Catian made right after his apprehension by the Philippine Constabulary three days after the killing of Agripino Patrimonio in the evening of March 9, 1955. The motion alleges that this statement was "purposely suppressed by the constabulary officers", because in it Catian pointed to Maximo Saez, appellant's brother, as the one who, in the presence of two other persons — Napoleon Escandar and Prudencio Esmalia — had handed to Catian rifle with order to shoot on sight any person found in the coconut plantation owned by the family. A photostatic copy of the statement is attached to the motion under consideration, the original being in the possession of appellant's counsel.
Regarding the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the sworn statement relied upon, the motion alleges the following:
Long after Adolfo Saez was convicted by the trial court and as this case was pending appeal, Atty. Artemio Al. Loyola (counsel for accused-appellant in the lower court) chanced upon a certain Sgt. Honesto Samson of the Davao PC Command, who turned out to be among the original investigating PC officers. Sgt. Samson inquired about the status of the case and when he was informed by Atty. Loyola that Adolfo Saez had been convicted by the trial court, volunteered the information that kept among the miscellaneous files of the Davao PC Command was a confession signed by Roman Catian shortly after his arrest, in which Catian admitted that it was he who had shot Agripino Patrimonio. Sgt. Samson further ventured the opinion that had said written statement been introduced during the trial, it could have affected the decision of the lower court.
Atty. Loyola's curiosity was of course aroused, especially because his own investigation had indicated that such a written confession had been made by Catian but it was disregarded and never located, and Capt. Lagura had denied at the trial that it existed. He asked for more information from Sgt. Samson regarding the matter. Sgt. Samson informed him that the statement was taken by Cpl. Barril in his presence and in the presence of then Mayor Cesar E. Bendigo and then Chief of Police Luis Maleza of Sta. Cruz, Davao at the Municipal Hall. Atty. Loyola thereupon requested Sgt. Samson to accompany him to the PC Headquarters so that he could read the contents of the confession. While in the PC Headquarters, Sgt. Samson showed the files to Atty. Loyola and even gave him a duplicate original of the confession, duly signed by Catian. With said signed duplicate original of the confession in his hands, Atty. Loyola notified undersigned counsel, Attys. Pelaez & Jalandoni, of his discovery. Thereupon, undersigned counsel immediately sent their assistant attorney, Mr. Abraham F. Briones, to Davao to interview Sgt. Samson. (pp. 19-20, motion).
In view of the allegations made in the motion, we required the Solicitor General on May 12, 1961 to file an answer thereto within ten days from notice. On at least three different occasions we granted his office extensions of time to file his answer, and the same not having been filed until September 26, 1961, notwithstanding the expiration of the last extension granted, we issued a resolution on that date requiring him to state for the record, within five days from notice, whether or not he intended to file the required answer. On October 13, 1961 the Solicitor General finally filed it; the principal allegation made therein being as follows:
1. The delay in submitting this pleading is due to a cautious determination of the truth; we had referred the matter of wilfull suppression of evidence allegedly committed by the PC authorities in Davao City to the PC Chief, who ordered for an investigation of the matter and thereafter submitted his report to this representation who in turn called for a conference between the PC officer who personally conducted the said investigation in Davao and the representative of the Law Office of Pelaez and Jalandoni, defense counsel, who previously went to Davao for the same purpose;
2. The newly discovered evidence unearthed after the trial and the promulgation of the judgment of this Honorable Court consists of a statement subscribed by co-accused Roman Catian three days after commission of the crime, specially on March 12, 1955 in an investigation conducted by the PC in Davao;
3. In calling the attention of the Honorable Court to said newly-discovered evidence, appellant in effect points to his own brother, Maximo Saez, as the killer, which strikes this representation as rather unnatural and almost desperate for a brother to do, unless compelled by a conviction of his own innocence;
4. The said newly-discovered evidence which is reproduced on pages 14-16 of appellant's motion implicates Maximo Saez as the man who instructed Catian (the affiant) along with two others to shoot at anyone stealing coconuts, while appellant Adolfo Saez is mentioned therein as one of those who participated in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased Agripino Patrimonio;
5. The investigation conducted by the PC top brass and this representation discloses the following significant facts:
(a) That the newly-discovered evidence, consisting of the statement of Catian (implicating Maximo Saez) which was executed by the latter ahead of the affidavit (implicating Adolfo Saez as principal) which was the one presented as evidence before the lower Court;
(b) That the testimony of Capt. Lagura of the Davao PC regarding a statement of Catian, (also implicating Maximo Saez) which was unfinished and unsigned, referred to one which was being prepared previous to that which is now the basis of the newly-discovered evidence (pp. 17, 18, appellant's Motion); hence, there seems to be nothing on record to show the existence of the statement now in question which consequently could not have been discovered at the trial;
(c) That even assuming that Capt. Lagura was not referring to Catian's statement now the subject matter of the new trial incident but to a previous unfinished statement, the alleged reason for justifying the preparation and execution of the second statement (the basis of the new trial) — which is that Catian implicated Maximo Saez which the PC believed was not true — is not logical inasmuch as the said second statement again implicated Maximo Saez; thus, if we follow the theory of the PC, Catian implicated Maximo Saez twice before be implicated Adolfo Saez once on the same date, March 12, 1955;
(d) That the foregoing facts were never made known to the provincial fiscal or to the court or to the defense, for otherwise, who can tell what the outcome would be; it is possible the Fiscal might have proceeded against Maximo Saez as the principal, in lieu of Adolfo Saez instead of having the case dismissed against the former for lack of evidence;
6. Without having to pass on the merits of the theory of 'mistrial' as raised by the defense in the sense that evidence offered during the separate trials of the different accused were allegedly considered by the court as evidence against the said appellant, this representation believes in giving in accused a criminal case every opportunity to defend himself, and this includes any opportunity known and available to him at the trial with the view of insuring the fullest satisfaction of the requirements of due process; and
7. There being no harm to the interests of the state, the choice is not difficult to make especially when we bear in mind that cardinal precept known to all free men that it is better to let a number of guilty men go free than send one innocent man to jail.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, this representation interposes no objection to a new trial to be granted to the appellant under conditions and limitations that this Honorable Court may deem fit to impose.
Inasmuch as an extrajudicial confession made by Roman Catian subsequent to the one mentioned heretofore was taken into account by the trial court in convicting appellant; considering that the sworn statement relied upon in the motion under consideration might render valueless the sworn statement upon which the trial court partly relied to convict appellant and might even affect the credibility of some of the prosecution witnesses because it points to a person other than appellant as the one who had given the order to shoot any intruder found in the coconut plantation of the Saez family; and considering further that before and during the trial the defense had no reasonable opportunity to discover the existence of the sworn statement aforesaid, we believe that, in the interest of justice, the motion for new trial should be granted.
WHEREFORE, the decision heretofore rendered in this case is set aside and the record is remanded to the lower court for new trial in consonance herewith.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
