A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN, JR.

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 145420

September 19, 2006

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:
Before this Court is a Petition for New Trial and, in the
alternative, for the Reopening of the Case1 on the ground of
newly discovered evidence filed by A. Rafael C. Dinglasan, Jr.
(Dinglasan) who was found guilty2 of violating Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks
Law, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62,
in Criminal Case No. 21238.
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,
together with the transmittal letter dated 8 October 1985
attached to Solidbank Manager's Check No. 002969 dated 3
October 1985 sent by Ma. Elena Dinglasan to Antrom, 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a new trial or reopening of the case
based on newly discovered evidence should be allowed.
HELD:
Explicit from the above stated rule that a Motion for
New Trial should be filed before the judgment of the
appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.
To rule that finality of judgment shall be reckoned from
the receipt of the resolution or order denying the second
motion for reconsideration would result to an absurd
situation whereby courts will be obliged to issue orders or
resolutions denying what is a prohibited motion in the first
place, in order that the period for the finality of judgments
shall run, thereby, prolonging the disposition of cases.
Moreover, such a ruling would allow a party to forestall the
running of the period of finality of judgments by virtue of
filing a prohibited pleading; such a situation is not only
illogical but also unjust to the winning party.
It should be emphasized that the applicant for new trial
has the burden of showing that the new evidence he seeks
to present has complied with the requisites to justify the
holding of a new trial.28
The threshold question in resolving a motion for new
trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the
proferred evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence
which could not have been discovered by due diligence." The
question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two
aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence
discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it
have been discovered.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition
is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.