Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16379)
Facts:
Appellant Lao Wan Sing alias Co Tiok alias Wasing was charged in the Court of First Instance of Aklan with arson (Criminal Case No. 964). After trial, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, convicted of arson with the aggravating circumstance under Article 14(7) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, including indemnity to the victims of the fire and related penalties.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on December 17, 1966. Appellant later filed (through new counsel) a second motion for reconsideration or new trial based on the recantations of prosecution witnesses Jose Narce and Guillermo I. Vidal, executed in affidavits during the pendency of the appeal, supported by a claim that, if credited, the conviction would lack proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
- Whether the affidavits of recantation of Jose Narce and Guillermo I. Vidal could be treated as newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
- Whether, after excluding the testimony of Narce and Vidal in light of their recantations, the remaining evidence was sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Court granted the second motion for reconsideration or new trial and set aside the trial court’s judgment, the Court’s prior decision, and its resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration or new trial. It remanded the case to the court of origin for a new trial.
The Court also required appellant’s former counsel, Atty. Vicente J. Francisco, to show cause within thirty days why he should not be punished for contempt, based on disparaging statements contained in the motion for reconsideration or new trial.
Ratio:
The Court held that if the recantations were true, there would be no credible and positive identification of appellant as the arsonist, since the remaining testimony relied upon by the conviction was insufficient. It found that witness Coronacion Penaflor did not positively identify appellant because she only heard a voice recognized to be his and her testimony contained contradictions and improbabilities.
The Court further reasoned that the recantations were statements discovered after the case had been tried and while the appeal was pending, which the appellant could not have secured during the trial, and which could materially change the judgment. It applied a liberal construction of new-trial rules in criminal cases where the State’s evidence might be weak and where granting a new trial could produce at least a reasonable doubt, consistent with precedents such as People vs. Bocar and U.S. vs. Dacir.
Doctrine:
- A new trial may be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence, even involving recantations, when the recantations, if credited, would leave no evidence sustaining the conviction other than the contradictory testimony and would likely lead the trial court to a different conclusion.
- (Get Pro to unlock 7 more doctrines)