Case Digest (G.R. No. 56923)
Facts:
Ramon J. Alegre v. Hon. Manuel T. Reyes, etc., and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 56923, May 9, 1988, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Ramon J. Alegre was indicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch IX) for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The amended information alleged that, as President and General Manager of the Philippine Jai-Alai & Amusement Corporation (PJAC), Alegre approved petty cash vouchers from October 17, 1975 to April 30, 1976, resulting in disbursements charged against funds described as public and impressed with public attributes, to the damage of the government in the stated amount.
Alegre pleaded not guilty. Trial began November 17, 1977 and continued for about two and a half years until March 24, 1980, when the prosecution rested after presenting twenty-nine witnesses, voluminous documentary exhibits (marked A through KKK), and thirty-three affidavits admitted over defense hearsay objections. Alegre's direct presentation consisted only of his own testimony and a few exhibits, offered on September 24 and 29, 1980. The parties later filed memoranda, including replies.
On February 12, 1981, some twelve days after receiving the prosecution's reply memorandum and before judgment, Alegre filed a "Motion to Reopen Trial for Presentation of Additional Evidence." He sought to prove, inter alia, that the contested funds were not public nor impressed with a public character; that he was not a public officer; that a Games & Amusements Board resolution relied upon by the prosecution was ultra vires and unpublished; that certain payments came from specific PJAC accounts (e.g., "betting dividends payable" or petty cash) and not from unclaimed dividends for charity; and to present the affidavits of more than thirty persons and other documentary proofs. Alegre candidly admitted that his failure to present these proofs earlier was due to oversight discovered while preparing his memoranda-in-chief and reply.
The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing the evidence would be cumulative and that Alegre had had ample opportunity to present his case. By Order dated February 26, 1981, the trial court denied the motion, finding the record "extensively saturated with evidence" on the points raised and that further evidence would be cumulative and superfluous.
Alegre filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order enjoining promulgation of judgment and required the Solicitor General to comment, but it subsequently dismissed Alegre's petition for lack of merit (Decision written by Villaluz, J., with De la Fuente and Victoriano, JJ., concurring). Alegre then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. This Court issued a temporary restraining order dated May 25, 1981, inhibiting the respondent judge from proceeding.
The Supreme Court reviewed the nature of a motion to reopen (distinct from a motion for new trial), surveyed prior jurisprudence, and concluded that the trial court ha...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Alegre's motion to reopen the trial for presentation of additional evidence before judgment?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Alegre's petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's denial of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)