Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24968)
Facts:
Avelino C. Agulto (the petitioner) was charged with bigamy on April 23, 1970, in the City of Davao, Philippines. The information alleged that Agulto, having a lawful marriage with Maria Pilar Gaspar, subsequently married Andrea Suico on December 30, 1968, without legally dissolving his first marriage. After the trial concluded and the parties had rested their cases, Agulto filed a motion on November 12, 1975, requesting the reopening of the trial to present newly discovered evidence. The evidence consisted of a marriage contract between Andrea Suico and a man named Romeo Vergeire, dated July 19, 1960, purportedly proving that Suico’s marriage to Agulto was void due to her being previously married. However, the trial court denied this motion on March 23, 1976, citing that Agulto could have discovered the evidence sooner and had already been aware of Suico’s previous marriage since October 17, 1972. The trial court also rejected a subsequent motion for reconsideration from Agulto....Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24968)
Facts:
- Procedural Background
- A petition for review on certiorari was filed by Avelino C. Agulto challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision dated December 10, 1979.
- The CA’s decision affirmed the trial court’s order denying Agulto’s motion to reopen the trial.
- Original Criminal Charge
- On April 23, 1970, an information for bigamy was filed against Agulto.
- The information alleged that on or about December 30, 1968, in Davao City, Agulto, already legally married to Maria Pilar Gaspar, purportedly contracted a second marriage with Andrea Suico without a legal dissolution of his first marriage.
- Motion to Reopen the Trial
- After the parties had rested their cases but before judgment, Agulto filed a motion on November 12, 1975, requesting the trial to be reopened.
- The motion was premised on the presentation of newly-discovered evidence—a copy of a marriage contract between Andrea Suico and Romeo Vergeire, allegedly executed on July 19, 1960—purporting to show that Suico was married before her marriage to Agulto.
- Trial Court’s Denial
- On March 23, 1976, the trial court denied the motion to reopen the trial.
- The denial was based on the finding that the motion was filed too late, as Agulto, with due diligence, could have discovered the alleged evidence earlier, noting that he had been aware of the prior marriage of Suico on October 17, 1972.
- Issues Concerning the Evidence
- The contested marriage contract was challenged for its legal sufficiency:
- It did not bear the seal of the justice of the peace who solemnized the marriage.
- It omitted the indication of the municipality and province of the municipal court.
- The document appeared as an uncertified, xerox copy, raising doubts about its authenticity and whether a proper marriage license was secured.
- The fiscal did not charge Andrea Suico with bigamy, a fact that influenced the evidentiary backdrop of the case.
- Distinction Between Motions
- The case underscored the difference between a Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Reopen Trial:
- A Motion for New Trial is filed after judgment and within the appeal period under Rules 37 (CRIMINAL) or its civil counterparts.
- A Motion to Reopen Trial is presented after both parties have offered and closed their evidence but before the judgment is rendered.
- The reopening of a trial under such motion is seen as a recognized procedural recourse absent an express rule in the Rules of Court.
- Characterization of the Motion
- The petitioning motion was portrayed as having the characteristics of a dilatory pleading.
- Despite its questionable evidentiary basis, the motion effectively delayed the proceedings for fourteen years.
Issues:
- Abuse of Discretion
- Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion in denying Agulto’s motion to reopen the trial to adduce newly-discovered evidence.
- Timeliness and Evidentiary Validity
- Whether Agulto’s failure to present the alleged evidence at the appropriate time, despite having knowledge of its existence as early as October 17, 1972, justified the denial of the motion.
- Whether the defects in the alleged marriage contract (lack of proper certification, incomplete details, absence of required seals and licenses) rendered the evidence inadmissible or insufficient to warrant reopening the case.
- Procedural Recourse
- Whether the motion to reopen trial, as a procedural device distinct from a motion for new trial, was appropriately exercised or if it was merely a tactic to delay the proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)