Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

G.R. No.

145420

September 19, 2006

A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN, JR. petitioner, vs. HON. CO R! OF A""EALS, E! AL., respondents. DECISION CHICO#NA$ARIO, J.% Before this Court is a Petition for New Trial and, in the alternative, for the Reopening of the Case on the ground of newl! dis"overed eviden"e filed #! $. Rafael C. Dinglasan, %r. &Dinglasan' who was found guilt!( of violating Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. ((, otherwise *nown as The Boun"ing Che"*s +aw, #! the Regional Trial Court &RTC' of ,a*ati, Bran"h -(, in Cri)inal Case No. ( (./. On 0 $ugust 1/2, El)!ra Trading Corporation &El)!ra', represented #! its President, Dinglasan, and $ntro), In". &$ntro)', also represented #! its President, $ntonio 3ar"ia %r., entered into a ,e)orandu) of $gree)ent where#! the parties agreed that $ntro) will e4tend "redit a""o))odation in favor of El)!ra to finan"e its prawn #usiness. The latter, in turn, will issue "he"*s to guarantee the pa!)ent of its o#ligations. $ few )onths after a nu)#er of finan"ing transa"tions were )ade, El)!ra5s inde#tedness to $ntro) rea"hed the a)ount of P ,60-,777.2/. $s initial pa!)ent, Dinglasan issued a Co))er"ial Ban* &drawee #an*' Che"* No. 8O(0762 with $ntro) as pa!ee, #ut postdated on . O"to#er 1/2 in the a)ount of P2 2,777.77. 9pon present)ent for pa!)ent with the drawee #an*, however, the said "he"* was dishonored for insuffi"ien"! of funds. Conse:uentl!, on - De"e)#er 1/2, an Infor)ation . "harging Dinglasan with ;iolation of Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. (( was filed #efore the RTC of ,a*ati, Bran"h -(, do"*eted as Cri)inal Case No. ( (./, People of the Philippines v. $. Rafael C. Dinglasan, %r. The Infor)ation reads< That on or a#out the .rd da! of O"to#er, 1/2, in the ,uni"ipalit! of ,a*ati, ,etro ,anila, Philippines and within the =urisdi"tion of this 8onora#le Court, the a#ove>na)ed a""used, well *nowing that he has no suffi"ient funds in or "redit with the #an*, did there and then willfull!, unlawfull! and feloniousl! )a*e out and issue Co))er"ial Ban* of ,anila Che"* No. 87(7062 dated O"to#er ., 1/2 in the a)ount of P2 2,777.77 in pa!)ent of his o#ligation to $ntro) In"., represented #! Rosanna E. ;elas"o, #ut when said "he"* was presented to the #an* for pa!)ent, the sa)e was dishonored and?or refused pa!)ent for reason @Drawn $gainst Insuffi"ient Aunds@ and a""used, despite repeated de)ands and lapse of five &2' #an*ing da!s fro) noti"e thereof, failed and refused to )a*e good the said "he"* and?or to deposit with the drawee #an* the ne"essar! a)ount to "over the aforesaid "he"*, to the da)age and pre=udi"e of the herein "o)plainant in the afore)entioned a)ount of P2 2,777.77

On - De"e)#er 11 , the trial "ourt "onvi"ted Dinglasan for having "o))itted the "ri)e "harged. In a De"ision6pro)ulgated on the sa)e date, the "ourt a :uo found hi) guilt! #e!ond reasona#le dou#t of violating Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. ((. The dispositive portion reads this wise< B8EREAORE, finding a""used $. Rafael C. Dinglasan, %r. guilt! #e!ond reasona#le dou#t of violating B.P. Blg. ((, he is here#! senten"ed to suffer an i)prison)ent of one !ear and to pa! a fine of Two 8undred Thousand Pesos &P(77,777.77'C and, to inde)nif! $NTRO,, INC., the su) of Aive 8undred Aifteen &si"' &P2 2,777.77' Pesos, at DtheE legal rate of interest fro) O"to#er ., 1/2, until the full a)ount of P2 2,777.7 is full! paid. Dinglasan, thereafter, filed a ,otion for Re"onsideration 2 whi"h was denied #! the sa)e "ourt for la"* of )erit in an Order- issued on 6 Septe)#er 11(. On (2 Septe)#er 11(, Dinglasan appealed to the Court of $ppeals the adverse RTC De"ision dated - De"e)#er 11 , finding hi) guilt! of violating Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. (( and the RTC Order dated 6 Septe)#er 11(, den!ing his ,otion for Re"onsideration.0 On (- O"to#er 11/, the appellate "ourt in C$>3.R. CR No. 6 ./, People of the Philippines v. $. Rafael. C. Dinglasan, handed down a De"ision, / dis)issing the appeal, there#!, affir)ing in toto the De"ision of the RTC finding Dinglasan guilt! #e!ond reasona#le dou#t of violating Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. ((. The dispositive portion reads< B8EREAORE, finding no reversi#le error therefro), the De"ision now on appeal is here#! $AAIR,ED in toto. Costs against a""used>appellant. $ggrieved, the a""used filed #efore this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 :uestioning the (- O"to#er 11/ De"ision of the Court of $ppeals. The petition was do"*eted as 3.R. No. .0/77, $. Rafael C. Dinglasan v. Court of $ppeals, and was raffled to the Third Division of this Court. In a Resolution 7 dated (/ %une 111, this Court resolved to den! the petition for failure to show that a reversi#le error had #een "o))itted #! the appellate "ourt. $ ,otion for Re"onsideration was then filed #! Dinglasan on (- $ugust 111, #ut the sa)e was again denied #! this Court in a Resolution dated . Septe)#er 111 for failure to raise su#stantial argu)ents that would warrant re"onsideration of the Resolution dated (/ %une 111 with an ad "autela) that su"h denial is final. ( 9ndaunted, Dinglasan filed a Se"ond ,otion for Re"onsideration #ut the sa)e was )erel! noted without a"tion #! this Court in view of the En Ban" Resolution dated 0 $pril 1/0 that no )otion for leave to file a se"ond )otion for re"onsideration of a =udg)ent or a final resolution #! the sa)e part! shall #e entertained. In a Resolution dated - De"e)#er 111, this Court dire"ted that no further pleadings shall #e entertained in this "ase.

The Resolution of this Court dated (/ %une 111 den!ing Dinglasan5s Petition for Review #e"a)e final and e4e"utor! on 6 O"to#er 111 as eviden"ed #! the Entr! of %udg)ent. . B! virtue of the final and e4e"utor! =udg)ent rendered #! this Court in 3.R. No. .0/77, the prose"ution, on 1 Septe)#er (777, filed a )otion 6 with the RTC for the issuan"e of the warrant of arrest and writ of e4e"ution in order to satisf! the =udg)ent. The prose"ution li*ewise pra!ed that a hold>departure order #e issued in order to prevent Dinglasan fro) leaving the "ountr! until he has full! served his senten"e. In an Order 2 issued on ( Septe)#er (777, the trial "ourt, a"ting on the said )otion, issued a warrant for the arrest of Dinglasan and a writ of e4e"ution for the enfor"e)ent of his "ivil lia#ilit! and, at the sa)e ti)e, en=oining hi) fro) leaving the "ountr!. $lar)ed, Dinglasan on .7 O"to#er (777, filed the instant Petition for New Trial and, in the alternative, for the Reopening of the Case - #ased on newl! dis"overed eviden"e, whi"h was do"*eted as 3.R. No. 626(7, entitled, @$. Rafael C. Dinglasan %r. v. Court of $ppeals.@ 8e urges this Court to uphold su#stantial =usti"e, e)phasiFing that the newl! dis"overed eviden"e he see*s to introdu"e in this "ase is so )aterial and of su"h weight that, if, ad)itted would pro#a#l! "hange the =udg)ent, hen"e, suspension of pro"edural rules is warranted. The alleged newl! dis"overed eviden"e "lai)ed #! Dinglasan are the affidavits of ,a. Elena Dinglasan, in her "apa"it! as E4e"utive ;i"e>President and Treasurer of El)!ra, and ,a. En"arna"ion ;da. De Dinglasan, the wife of ,ariano Dinglasan, who, during his lifeti)e, was the Cashier and +iaison Offi"er of the sa)e "o)pan!. These affidavits, together with the trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 atta"hed to Solid#an* ,anager5s Che"* No. 77(1-1 dated . O"to#er 1/2 sent #! ,a. Elena Dinglasan to $ntro), tends to prove that Dinglasan )ade good of the "he"* within five #an*ing da!s fro) noti"e of dishonor. 8e "ould not, therefore, #e validl! "onvi"ted of violating Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. (( for one of the essential ele)ents of the offense, that is, the drawer failed and refused to )a*e good the said "he"* within five #an*ing da!s fro) the noti"e of dishonor, is a#sent. In her affidavit, 0 ,a. Elena Dinglasan attested that she was the E4e"utive ;i"e> President and Treasurer of El)!ra for the period of 1/2> 1/-. $s su"h, she was in> "harge of dis#ursing and sour"ing of "orporation funds in"luding the preparation of "he"*s and approval of vou"hers supporting the dis#urse)ents. In the "ourse of its #usiness, the affiant "aused the issuan"e of Co))er"ial Ban* Che"* No. (0762 on (0 Septe)#er 1/2 in the a)ount of P2 2,777.77, #ut postdated on . O"to#er 1/2, whi"h was dishonored #! the #an* for insuffi"ien"! of funds and whi"h eventuall! "aused Dinglasan5s "onvi"tion for violation of Batas Pa)#ansa Blg. ((. 9pon re"eiving the noti"e of dishonor, she "aused the preparation of Solid#an* ,anager5s Che"* No. 77(1-1 dated . O"to#er 1/2 in the a)ount of P 27,777.77 intended to "over a part of the a)ount of the #oun"ed "he"*. The Solid#an* "he"*, together with its trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2, stating the purpose of the said "he"*, was sent to $ntro)

and was re"eived #! its representative as eviden"ed #! the signature appearing on the re"eiving "op! thereof. E4plaining wh! the said trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 was #elatedl! offered as eviden"e on this "ase, ,a. Elena Dinglasan reasoned that that she was not aware that the said letter has an! signifi"an"e on Dinglasan5s lia#ilit!. She e4plained further that in 11. she was diagnosed of #reast "an"er and had to undergo surgi"al operation and "he)otherap!. To "orro#orate the state)ents of ,a. Elena Dinglasan, En"arna"ion ;da. De Dinglasan on her part, narrated under oath that her late hus#and used to #ring so)e of El)!ra5s do"u)ents ho)e to wor* on at night and after her hus#and5s death in 116, su"h do"u)ents were *ept inside a #o4 and left so)ewhere in one "orner of their house. It was onl! when a )inor renovation was )ade therein several !ears after her hus#and passed awa! that she was a#le to "han"e upon the said do"u)ents again. The said do"u)ents were turned over to Dinglasan on ( O"to#er (777. It was later dis"overed that the said do"u)ents in"lude the trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 sent #! ,a. Elena Dinglasan to $ntro). / In "ontrast, private respondent $ntro) "ontends that the Petition for New Trial and?or Reopening of the Case #ased on newl! dis"overed eviden"e should #e dis)issed on the ground that the sa)e is pro"edurall! and su#stantiall! defe"tive. 1 Ela#orating, $ntro) "lai)s that under the Revised Rules of Court, the ,otion for New Trial should #e filed at an! ti)e after the appeal fro) the lower "ourt has #een perfe"ted and #efore the =udg)ent of the appellate "ourt "onvi"ting the a""used #e"o)es final. The =udg)ent of this Court in 3.R. No. .0/77 dated (/ %une 111 #e"a)e final and e4e"utor! on 6 O"to#er 111 as eviden"ed #! the Entr! of %udg)ent. The present petition, on the other hand, was filed onl! on .7 O"to#er (777 or a !ear after the finalit! of the de"ision in 3.R. No. .0/77. The filing of the instant a"tion, therefore, has alread! pres"ri#ed.(7 ,oreover, $ntro) "ontinues, "onsidering for the sa*e of argu)ent that the instant a"tion was filed within the regle)entar! period, still, the petition )ust fail for the re:uisites for newl! dis"overed eviden"e as ground for new trial were not satisfa"toril! "o)plied with. +et it #e noted that the trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 112 was previousl! atta"hed as eviden"e in a Petition for Review filed #! Dinglasan #efore the ,inistr! of %usti"e &now the Depart)ent of %usti"e' on 2 De"e)#er 1/-, assailing the Resolution of the Ais"al dated De"e)#er 1/- re"o))ending the filing of Infor)ation against hi). The sa)e letter was also introdu"ed as eviden"e #efore the Court of $ppeals in C$>3.R. CR No. 6 ./ when Dinglasan assailed the RTC de"ision dated - De"e)#er 11 . 8en"e, the "lai) that the alleged eviden"e was not availa#le during the trial in the "ourts #elow, and is thus, newl! dis"overed is erroneous, if not )isleading.(

Ainall!, $ntro) stresses that, granting for the sa*e of argu)ent, that the petition at #ar was filed on ti)e and the alleged eviden"e is newl! dis"overed within the purview of the law, su"h eviden"e introdu"ed and ad)itted, nevertheless, would not e4"ulpate Dinglasan fro) lia#ilit!. The grava)en of the offense is the a"t of the drawer in )a*ing or issuing a "he"* with the full *nowledge that he does not have suffi"ient funds to "over the a)ount. Su"h awareness was ad)itted #! Dinglasan when he e4pressl! re:uested $ntro) not to deposit the "he"* without his e4pli"it "onfor)it! in anti"ipation that su"h "he"* will #e dishonored if presented for pa!)ent. The )ere a"t of issuing a worthless "he"* and not the nonpa!)ent of the o#ligation is punished #! law #e"ause of its deleterious effe"t on pu#li" interest. The Soli"itor 3eneral, representing the People of the Philippines, on their part, su#)itted that the instant petition should #e dis)issed #e"ause it was filed out of ti)e and Dinglasan5s eviden"e sought to #e ad)itted is neither )aterial nor newl! dis"overed so as to warrant new trial or reopening of the "ase. The alleged eviden"e if introdu"ed and ad)itted, would not in an! wa! alter the =udg)ent. 9pon perusal of the trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2, it was nowhere stated therein that Solid#an* ,anager5s Che"* No. 77(1-1 dated . O"to#er 1/2 was intended as partial pa!)ent of Co))er"ial Ban* Che"* No. (0762 dated . O"to#er 1/2 that #oun"ed. The said letter was a )ere proposal wherein a pa!)ent in *ind or da"ion en pago was offered #! El)!ra. The Soli"itor 3eneral li*ewise noted that the letter dated / O"to#er 1/- was alread! introdu"ed as eviden"e in the Petition for Review with the ,inistr! of %usti"e filed #! Dinglasan.(( Aor the resolution of this Court are the following issues< I. B8ET8ER OR NOT T8E INST$NT PETITION B$S AI+ED ON TI,E. II. B8ET8ER OR NOT $ NEB TRI$+ OR REOPENIN3 OA T8E C$SE B$SED ON NEB+G DISCO;ERED E;IDENCE S8O9+D BE $++OBED. The pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of Court reads< Rule (6 H Pro"edure in the Court of $ppeals. Se"tion 6. ,otion for New Trial. H $t an! ti)e after the appeal fro) the lower "ourt has #een perfe"ted and #efore the =udg)ent of the Court of $ppeals "onvi"ting the a""used #e"o)es final, the latter )a! )ove for a new trial on the ground of newl! dis"overed eviden"e )aterial to his defense. The )otion shall "onfor) to the provisions of se"tion 6 Rule ( . &E)phasis supplied.'

E4pli"it fro) the a#ove stated rule that a ,otion for New Trial should #e filed #efore the =udg)ent of the appellate "ourt "onvi"ting the a""used #e"o)es final. Bhile Dinglasan agrees with the a#ove stated rules that the instant petition should #e filed #efore the finalit! of the =udg)ent "onvi"ting the appellant, he, however argues that =udg)ent attains finalit! onl! upon the re"eipt of the order or resolution den!ing his se"ond )otion for re"onsideration. Dinglasan5s argu)ent is without )erit. +et it #e re"alled that Dinglasan5s ,otion for +eave to Aile Se"ond ,otion for Re"onsideration was denied #! this Court as the su#=e"t )atter thereof is a prohi#ited pleading and that the ,otion for Re"onsideration was )erel! noted without a"tion. This order is issued pursuant to En Ban" Resolution dated 0 $pril 111 whi"h prohi#its an! )otion for leave to file a se"ond )otion for re"onsideration and was further e)phasiFed #! the provision of the Revised Rules of Court whi"h provides that< Rule 2(. H ,otion for Re"onsideration. Se"tion (. Se"ond ,otion for Re"onsideration. H No se"ond )otion for re"onsideration of a =udg)ent or a final resolution #! the sa)e part! shall #e entertained. This prohi#ition is =ustified #! pu#li" poli"! whi"h de)ands that at the ris* of o""asional errors, =udg)ents of "ourts )ust #e"o)e final at so)e definitive date fi4ed #! law.(. To rule that finalit! of =udg)ent shall #e re"*oned fro) the re"eipt of the resolution or order den!ing the se"ond )otion for re"onsideration would result to an a#surd situation where#! "ourts will #e o#liged to issue orders or resolutions den!ing what is a prohi#ited )otion in the first pla"e, in order that the period for the finalit! of =udg)ents shall run, there#!, prolonging the disposition of "ases. ,oreover, su"h a ruling would allow a part! to forestall the running of the period of finalit! of =udg)ents #! virtue of filing a prohi#ited pleadingC su"h a situation is not onl! illogi"al #ut also un=ust to the winning part!. It #ears stressing further that on 6 O"to#er 111, the Resolution of this Court in 3.R. No. .0/77 dated (/ %une 111 #e"a)e final and e4e"utor! as eviden"ed #! the Entr! of %udg)ent a""ording to the pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of Court, whi"h reads< Rule 2 . > %udg)ent. @Se". 7. Entry of judgments and final resolutions. H If no appeal or )otion for new trial or re"onsideration is filed within the ti)e provided in these Rules, the =udg)ent or final resolution shall forthwith #e entered #! the "ler* in the #oo* of

entries of =udg)ents. The date when the =udg)ent or final resolution #e"o)es e4e"utor! shall #e dee)ed as the date of its entr!. The re"ord shall "ontain the dispositive part of the =udg)ent or final resolution and shall #e signed #! the "ler*, with a "ertifi"ate that su"h =udg)ent or final resolution has #e"o)e final and e4e"utor!. $fter the =udg)ent or final resolution is entered in the entries of =udg)ent, the "ase shall #e laid to rest. $ de"ision that a":uired finalit! #e"o)es i))uta#le and unaltera#le and it )a! no longer #e )odified in an! respe"t even if the )odifi"ation is )eant to "orre"t erroneous "on"lusions of fa"t or law and whether it will #e )ade #! the "ourt that rendered it or #! the highest "ourt of the land. (6 ;er! "learl!, the filing of the instant Petition for New Trial and?or Reopening of the Case on .7 O"to#er (777 was )ade wa! #e!ond the pres"riptive period for doing so. The "lai) of Dinglasan that he honestl! #elieved that this Court will appre"iate his defense of pa!)ent as reiterated in his Se"ond ,otion for Re"onsideration whi"h was wh! he dee)ed it pre>)ature to file the instant petition #efore re"eiving the Court5s ruling on the said )otion, "ould not #e given "reden"e. The finalit! of de"ision is a =urisdi"tional event whi"h "annot #e )ade to depend on the "onvenien"e of the part!. To rule otherwise would "o)pletel! negate the purpose of the rule on "o)pleteness of servi"e, whi"h is to pla"e the date of re"eipt of pleadings, =udg)ent and pro"esses #e!ond the power of the part! #eing served to deter)ine at his pleasure.(2 Dinglasan further asseverates that this petition was #elatedl! )ade #e"ause the eviden"e sought to #e ad)itted were not availa#le at the ti)e the instant petition should have #een filed. $""ordingl!, he "lai)s that this eviden"e falls within the purview of newl! dis"overed eviden"e as "onte)plated #! law. The pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of Court reads< Rule ( H New Trial or Re"onsideration. Se". (. Grounds for a new trial. I The "ourt shall grant a new trial on an! of the following grounds< &a' That errors of law or irregularities pre=udi"ial to the su#stantial rights of the a""used have #een "o))itted during the trialC &#' That new and )aterial eviden"e has #een dis"overed whi"h the a""used "ould not with reasona#le diligen"e have dis"overed and produ"ed at the trial and whi"h if introdu"ed and ad)itted would pro#a#l! "hange the =udg)ent. The re:uisites for newl! dis"overed eviden"e under Se"tion (, Rule ( of the Revised Rules of Cri)inal Pro"edure are< &a' the eviden"e was dis"overed after

the trialC &#' su"h eviden"e "ould not have #een dis"overed and produ"ed at the trial with reasona#le diligen"eC and &"' that it is )aterial, not )erel! "u)ulative, "orro#orative or i)pea"hing, and is of su"h weight that, if ad)itted, will pro#a#l! "hange the =udg)ent.(These standards, also *nown as the @Berr! Rule,@ tra"e their origin to the /2 "ase of Berry v. State of Georgia(0where the Supre)e Court of 3eorgia held< $ppli"ations for new trial on a""ount of newl! dis"overed eviden"e, are not favored #! the Courts. 4 4 4 9pon the following points there see)s to #e a prett! general "on"urren"e of authorit!, viFC that it is in"u)#ent on a part! who as*s for a new trial, on the ground of newl! dis"overed eviden"e, to satisf! the Court, st. That the eviden"e has "o)e to his *nowledge sin"e the trial. (d. That it was not owing to the want of due diligen"e that it did not "o)e sooner. .d. That it is so )aterial that it would produ"e a different verdi"t, if the new trial were granted. 6th. That it is not "u)ulative onl! > viFC spea*ing to fa"ts, in relation to whi"h there was eviden"e on the trial. 2th. That the affidavit of the witness hi)self should #e produ"ed, or its a#sen"e a""ounted for. $nd -th, a new trial will not #e granted, if the onl! o#=e"t of the testi)on! is to i)pea"h the "hara"ter or "redit of a witness. These guidelines have sin"e #een followed #! our "ourts in deter)ining the propriet! of )otions for new trial #ased on newl! dis"overed eviden"e. It should #e e)phasiFed that the appli"ant for new trial has the #urden of showing that the new eviden"e he see*s to present has "o)plied with the re:uisites to =ustif! the holding of a new trial.(/ The threshold :uestion in resolving a )otion for new trial #ased on newl! dis"overed eviden"e is whether the proferred eviden"e is in fa"t a @newl! dis"overed eviden"e whi"h "ould not have #een dis"overed #! due diligen"e.@ The :uestion of whether eviden"e is newl! dis"overed has two aspe"ts< a te)poral one, i.e., when was the eviden"e dis"overed, and a predi"tive one, i.e., when should or "ould it have #een dis"overed.(1 $ppl!ing the foregoing test, Dinglasan insists, and the affidavits of ,a. Elena Dinglasan and En"arna"ion ;da. De Dinglasan attest, that the trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 was dis"overed re"entl! or =ust #efore the ti)e the affidavits were e4e"uted on (. O"to#er (777. The re"ords, however, show otherwise. In C$>3.R. CR No. 6 ./, it appears that the appellate "ourt alread! "onsidered that trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 in rendering its De"ision dated (- O"to#er 11/. The pertinent portion of the De"ision reads< It appears, however, that in a""used>appellant5s letter dated O"to#er 7, 1/-, &E4hi#it @B@' no )ention was )ade of the two &(' )anager5s "he"*s, "onsidering that at least one of the two &(', #oth dated O"to#er /, 1// &pp. (>., Re"ords' was allegedl! given to

private "o)plainant on the said date &pp. -1>07, I#id.'. Instead a proposal wherein pa!)ent in *ind or da"ion en pago was offered #! a""used>appellant. $lso, the trial "ourt "orre"tl! noted that, @4 4 4 a""used is a law!er and a #usiness)an. 8e will not part of )ore than one )illion pesos, in the for) of )anager5s "he"*s, as repla"e)ent of a "he"* that #oun"ed, without an! supporting do"u)ent.@ &p. /, De"ision, Cri)inal Case No. ( (./'. Be are in a""ord with the findings of the lower "ourt that there is no eviden"e esta#lishing that a""used>appellant as*ed for the return of the Co)#an* Che"* in the sa)e wa! that the PTB Che"* had #een returned, other than stating in his letter of O"to#er /, 1/2 that said "he"* had #een "onsidered "an"elled &p. -1, Re"ords', and after the Co)#an* Che"* had alread! #oun"ed. &p. 7, Brief for $""used>$ppellant'. Its :uite a#surd that a""used>appellant would repla"e the Co)#an* Che"* with an a)ount )ore than the P2 2,777.77, if the whole inde#tedness was still su#=e"t to final li:uidation. $s eviden"ed #! the vou"her &E4hi#it @2@' a""used>appellant issued Co)#an* Che"* in e4"hange for PTB Che"*. 8en"e, it is :uite :uiFFi"al wh! a""used> appellant did not as* for the return of the Co)#an* "he"* after having issued two &(' )anager5s "he"*..7 &E)phasis supplied.' ;eril!, the "lai) of Dinglasan that the alleged eviden"e sought to #e presented in this "ase was re"entl! dis"overed is a falsit!. It is a desperate atte)pt to )islead this Court to give due "ourse to a "ause that has long #een lost. Dinglasan appeals for the "o)passion of this Court #ut never did so in good faith. It is "ontrar! to hu)an e4perien"e to have overloo*ed an eviden"e whi"h was de"isivel! "lai)ed to have su"h signifi"an"e that )ight pro#a#l! "hange the =udg)ent. The re"ords are ver! "lear. The trans)ittal letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 was alread! offered as eviden"e in C$>3.R. CR No. 6 ./ and was even anne4ed to the Petition for Review filed #efore the Court of $ppeals as $nne4 @B.@ Irrefraga#l!, the letter dated / O"to#er 1/2 is not newl! dis"overed. It is an atte)pt to raise again a defense whi"h was alread! weighed #! the appellate "ourt. $ "ontrar! ruling )a! open the floodgates to an endless review of de"isions, where losing litigants, in dela!ing the disposition of "ases, invo*e eviden"e alread! presented, whether through a )otion for re"onsideration or for a new trial, in guise of newl! dis"overed eviden"e. B8EREAORE, pre)ises "onsidered, the instant Petition is DIS,ISSED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martine , !allejo, Sr., "."., "on"ur.

Foot&ote'

Rollo, pp. 6>27.


(

Id. at -.. Re"ords, ;ol. I, p. . Id., ;ol. II, pp. .0->./ . Id. at ./6>.1(. Id. at 6 .>6 2. Id. at 6 -.

Penned #! $sso"iate %usti"e Pres#itero %. ;elas"o, %r. &now $sso"iate %usti"e of the Supre)e Court', with $sso"iate %usti"es Consuelo Gnares>Santiago &now $sso"iate %usti"e of the Supre)e Court' and B.$. $defuin dela CruF, "on"urringC rollo, pp. 0 > /..
/ 1

Rollo of 3.R. No. .0/77.


7

Id. at 2 . Id. at 2(>2/.

Id. at -7. Id. at /2. Re"ords, ;ol. II, pp. .2>660. Id. at 6-1>607. Rollo, pp. 6>.-. Id. at .1>60. Id. at 6/>27. Id. at 60->2 7. Id. Id. Id. at 2 2>2(-.

(7

((

Government Servi#e $nsuran#e System v. !ourt of A%%eals , ..6 Phil. -., 0. & 110'.
(.

Sa#dalan v. !ourt of A%%eals, 3.R. No. (/1-0, (7 ,a! (776, 6(/ SCR$ 2/-, 211.
(6 (2

Aguilar v. !ourt of A%%eals, .-1 Phil. -22, --2 & 111'. &umanog v. Sala ar, "r., 6 0 Phil. (71, ( 0 &(77 '.

(-

7 3a. 2 & /2 ', as "ited in !ustodio v. Sandiganbayan, 3.R. Nos. 1-7(0> (/, / ,ar"h (772, 62. SCR$ (6, .6.
(0 (/

!ustodio v. Sandiganbayan, Id. Id. Rollo, pp. /7> / .

(1

.7