Title
Aguilar vs. Natividad
Case
G.R. No. L-17849
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1962
Aguilar convicted of frustrated homicide; motion for new trial denied despite victim's retraction, as original testimony deemed credible and consistent.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17849)

Facts:

  1. Incident Details:

    • On the night of May 3, 1957, Francisco Estacio and Marcos Garcia went to Fernando Almonina's house on Antipolo Street, Manila, where Almonina and Simeon Dacumos were resting.
    • Estacio and Garcia asked Almonina to accompany them to Lepanto Street, where someone had earlier hurled stones at them. Almonina invited Dacumos to join.
    • As they proceeded towards Lepanto Street, Federico Escarmosa suddenly stabbed Almonina, who escaped. Dacumos tried to run but was blocked by Gregorio Aguilar and Francisco Estacio.
    • Aguilar stabbed Dacumos in the throat and later twice more as Dacumos attempted to escape. The incident occurred near a street light and houses with lights on.
  2. Trial and Conviction:

    • In Criminal Case No. 39888 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Gregorio Aguilar was charged with and convicted of frustrated homicide.
    • He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered to indemnify Dacumos P2,000.00.
  3. Appeal and Motion for New Trial:

    • Aguilar appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision on October 7, 1960.
    • On October 28, 1960, Aguilar filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial based on newly discovered evidence: a sworn statement from Dacumos retracting his original testimony.
    • Dacumos claimed in the affidavit that he could not identify his assailant due to darkness and the suddenness of the attack, and that he identified Aguilar based on police assurances.
  4. Court of Appeals' Findings:

    • The Court of Appeals found that Dacumos positively identified Aguilar as his assailant during the trial, despite not knowing him before the incident.
    • The court rejected Aguilar's claim that Dacumos only identified him after being prompted by a detective.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Aguilar's motion for reconsideration and/or new trial based on the newly discovered evidence (Dacumos' retraction).

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying Aguilar's motion for new trial. The retraction by Dacumos was insufficient to overturn the original conviction, as the trial court and the Court of Appeals had already found his original testimony credible and consistent with the evidence.

Ratio:

  1. Recantation and New Trials:

    • Recantation by a prosecution witness does not automatically entitle the defendant to a new trial. The decision depends on the circumstances of the case.
    • Testimony given during trial carries a presumption of truthfulness, especially when the trial judge has observed the witness's demeanor.
    • Sworn statements retracting previous testimony are given scant weight due to the potential for manipulation.
  2. Credibility of Witnesses:

    • The trial court's findings on witness credibility are generally respected, as the judge has the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand.
    • Dacumos' original testimony was consistent and supported by the circumstances of the crime, including the presence of light from the street and nearby houses.
  3. Burden of Proof for New Trial:

    • A new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires a clear showing of special circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the truth of the original testimony.
    • Aguilar failed to meet this burden, as Dacumos' retraction did not sufficiently undermine the credibility of his original identification.
  4. Finality of Findings:

    • The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision, are final and beyond review unless there is a clear showing of error.
    • No such error was demonstrated in this case.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolution denying Aguilar's motion for new trial, upholding the conviction for frustrated homicide. Costs were imposed on Aguilar.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.