Dinglasan vs. CA [G.R. No. 145420] Case Digest

 

Dinglasan vs. CA

G.R. No. 145420

 

Facts:

Elmyra Trading Corporation (Elmyra), represented by its President, Dinglasan, and Antrom, Inc. (Antrom), also represented by its President, Antonio Garcia Jr., entered into a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the parties agreed that Antrom will extend credit accommodation in favor of Elmyra to finance its prawn business. The latter, in turn, will issue checks to guarantee the payment of its obligations.

Elmyra's indebtedness to Antrom reached the amount of P1,476,000. As initial payment, Dinglasan issued a Commercial Bank (drawee bank) Check with Antrom as payee; however, the said check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

An Information charging Dinglasan with Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed before the RTC of Makati. The trial court convicted Dinglasan for having committed the crime charged. CA affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC.  SC denied the petition by petitioner. The judgment of SC became final and executory on 14 October 1999.

Dinglasan on 30 October 2000, filed the instant Petition for New Trial and, in the alternative, for the Reopening of the Case based on newly discovered evidence. The alleged newly discovered evidence claimed by Dinglasan are the affidavits of Ma. Elena Dinglasan, in her capacity as Executive Vice-President and Treasurer of Elmyra, and Ma. Encarnacion Vda. De Dinglasan, the wife of Mariano Dinglasan, who, during his lifetime, was the Cashier and Liaison Officer of the same company. These affidavits, tends to prove that Dinglasan made good of the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor. He could not, therefore, be validly convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for one of the essential elements of the offense, that is, the drawer failed and refused to make good the said check within five banking days from the notice of dishonor, is absent. Antrom argue that the instant action was filed within the reglementary period, still, the petition must fail for the requisites for newly discovered evidence as ground for new trial were not satisfactorily complied with.

 

Issue:

Whether or not a new trial or reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence should be allowed.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

the filing of the instant Petition for New Trial and/or Reopening of the Case on 30 October 2000 was made way beyond the prescriptive period for doing so. The claim of Dinglasan that he honestly believed that this Court will appreciate his defense of payment as reiterated in his Second Motion for Reconsideration which was why he deemed it pre-mature to file the instant petition before receiving the Court's ruling on the said motion, could not be given credence.

 

The finality of decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the party. To rule otherwise would completely negate the purpose of the rule on completeness of service, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment and processes beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure.