Case Digest (G.R. No. 5283)
Facts:
United States v. Tomas Umali, G.R. No. 5283. January 15, 1910, Supreme Court, Carson, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Tomas Umali, prosecuted for estafa.
At the trial level Umali was convicted of estafa. The trial court made material findings of fact that the evidence sustained guilt; it found that the amount obtained under false pretenses was P87.40, although the complaint alleged P101. Umali appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court.
While the case was pending on appeal, appellant filed an affidavit in support of a motion for a new trial to enable the taking of additional testimony. The affidavit averred that two witnesses, Joaquin Garcia Lopez and Pastor Espinosa (municipal president of Sariaya), had been summoned and were willing to testify that Umali had placed P50 per hectare at the disposal of Lopez after sales of lands owned by prosecution witnesses (including Venancio Rodriguez and Ignacio de Gala), and that the owners had consented to sell at P50 per hectare in the presence of Espinosa. The affidavit further asserted that these witnesses were not produced because Umali's counsel advised that the prosecution's evidence was ineffective against him, and because Umali (although a lawyer) was, at the time, mentally disturbed and relied on his counsel's advice.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial record and the affidavit. It considered longstanding authority that mistakes, omissions, or incompetence of counsel ordinarily do not justify reopening a criminal trial for a new trial. The Court found the trial court’s factual findings otherwise fully sustained by the evidence, concluded the omitted testimony either would not have altered the result or was deliberately not offered, and therefore denied the mot...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether Umali's motion for a new trial to receive the affidavit-proffered testimony should be granted on the ground of his counsel's alleged improper advice and his own asserted mental disturbance.
- Whether the amount obtained under false pretenses that must be returned is P101 as alleged in the complaint or P87.40 as found by the trial court, and whether the conviction a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)