Edilberto M. Cuenca Vs - Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines

EDILBERTO M. CUENCA VS.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 109870, December 01, 1995
FACTS:
After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his
conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential Decree No. 115)
was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated February 9, 1994, petitioner filed
on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL"[3] setting forth, in relation to the
motion for new trial:
"6. The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly discovered
evidence and excusible (sic) negligence, and shall be supported by affidavits of:
(i) an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate

petitioner;
(ii) (ii) an admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of
Ultra Corporation (the Corporation that employed petitioner), which
actually exercised control over the affairs of Ultra; and
(iii) (iii) the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for the first time
and explain why he was unable to do so earlier."
The Court in its July 27, 1994 Resolution, among other things, granted the
substitution but denied the motion for leave to file motion for new trial, "the
petition having been already denied on February 9, 1994."
Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO ADMIT

ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL", and a "MANIFESTATION AND SECOND
MOTION TO ADMIT" on August 17, 1994. The Court thereafter required the
Solicitor General to comment on said motion and manifestation within ten (10)
days from notice, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1994.
In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time were given by the
Court, the Solicitor General himself recommends that petitioner be entitled to a
new trial, proceeding from the same impression that a certain Rodolfo Cuenca's
(petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission against interest which may
ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal liability. And the Solicitor General
had this to say: "Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial.
"However, the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration against his
own interests under Section 38, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court and it casts
doubt on the culpability of his brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence,
the alleged confession of guilt should be given a hard look by the Court. "The
People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the genuineness and due
execution of his brother's affidavit in the interest of justice and fair play.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Motion for New Trial be granted?
HELD:
"The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme
Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a
sovereign `whose obligation to govern impartially is compelling as its obligation to
govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done (Time to Rein in the Prosecution, by
Atty. Bruce Fein, published on p. 11, The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994).
" Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965]) decided some twenty
(20) years ago, this Court ruled that it is not authorized to entertain a motion for
reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered
evidence the rationale of which being:
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and

cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari
to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new
trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are
involved therein", the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned,
in subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People" and "People v. Amparado".
In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite
the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted accused
concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the
Court considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse
the judgment of conviction. Being similarly circumstanced, there is no nagging
reason why herein petitioner should be denied the same benefit. It becomes all
the more plausible under the circumstances considering that the "People" does
not raise any objection to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought
to be specially commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture
of impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.
DOCTRINE: "Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the People of the Philippines in a
criminal case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the accused but to see that
justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states:
Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is

not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is
highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

Edilberto M. Cuenca Vs - Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edilberto M. Cuenca Vs - Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edilberto M. Cuenca Vs - Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDILBERTO M. CUENCA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

(i) an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate

Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO ADMIT

Whether or not the Motion for New Trial be granted?

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and

DOCTRINE: "Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is

You might also like