Custodio vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 96027-28] Case Digest

 

Custodio vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 96027-28

 

Facts:

Motion To Re-Open Case With Leave Of Court filed by petitioners who were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Sandiganbayan for the double murder of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman on August 21, 1983.

Petitioners were members of the military who acted as Senator Aquino's security detail upon his arrival in Manila from his three-year sojourn in the United States. They were charged, together with several other members of the military, before the Sandiganbayan for the killing of Senator Aquino who was fatally shot as he was coming down from the aircraft at the Manila International Airport. Petitioners were also indicted for the killing of Rolando Galman who was also gunned down at the airport tarmac.

On December 2, 1985, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010-10011 acquitting all the accused, which include the petitioners. However, the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan were later found by SC to be a sham trial. The Court thus nullified said proceedings, as well as the judgment of acquittal, and ordered a re-trial of the cases.

In its decision dated September 28, 1990, the Sandiganbayan, while acquitting the other accused, found the petitioners guilty as principals of the crime of murder in both Criminal Cases. The judgment became final after this Court denied petitioners' petition for review of the Sandiganbayan decision for failure to show reversible error in the questioned decision, as well as their subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The petitioners, assisted by the Public Attorney's Office, now want to present the findings of the forensic group to this Court and ask the Court to allow the re-opening of the cases and the holding of a third trial to determine the circumstances surrounding the death of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman. Petitioners argue on the existence of newly discovered pieces of evidence that were not available during the second trial of the above-entitled cases which could have altered the judgment of the Sandiganbayan as one of their grounds in opening the case.

 

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to a third trial under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Petitioners anchor their motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Courts are generally reluctant in granting motions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence for it is presumed that the moving party has had ample opportunity to prepare his case carefully and to secure all the necessary evidence before the trial. Such motions are treated with great caution due to the danger of perjury and the manifest injustice of allowing a party to allege that which may be the consequence of his own neglect to defeat an adverse judgment. Hence, the moving party is often required to rebut a presumption that the judgment is correct and that there has been a lack of due diligence, and to establish other facts essential to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

 This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered.