People v. Pineda

[CA No. 593-R. May 27, 1947.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee , vs . CATALINO PINEDA , defendant-appellant . Vicente J . Francisco for appellant. First Assistant Solicitor-General J . B . L . Reyes and Solicitor Tomacruz for appellee. SYLLABUS 1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; NEW TRIAL; RULES OF COURT; RULE 117, SECTION 5. Referring to new trials granted by courts of first instance, Rule 117, section 5, of the Rules of Court, provides that "the court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence" (subsection [e]) and that "when a new trial is granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the evidence already taken shall stand, and the newly discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allowed to be introduced , shall be taken . . ." (subsection [b]). 2. ID.; ID.; RULES OF COURT, RULE 120, SECTION 14. Rule 120, section 14, of the Rules of Court, authorizes the Court of Appeals to "remand the case to the court of first instance for new trial or retrial," without specifying, and, hence, without limiting, the grounds upon which this action may be predicated. Indeed, new trials have been ordered by the Supreme Court in several criminal cases upon grounds other than those mentioned in the statutes (U.S. vs . Repollo, 2 Phil., 195; U.S. vs . Laranja, 21 Phil., 500; U.S. vs . Jimenez, 34 Phil., 74). It would seem clear, therefore, that the court may, in the case at bar, grant the new trial prayed for, if the same is necessary for the proper administration of justice. D E C I S I O N CONCEPCION , J p : Defendant Catalino Pineda is charged with the crime of estafa . It is admitted that on November 25, 1936, he received from complainant, Jose Gimenez, in Legaspi, Albay, a check (Exhibit A), in the sum of P400.40, "for registration of 22 gold claims in barrio Pambuan-Culasi, Daet, Camarines Norte and for other expenses incurred in throwing cleared lines and making placards on every claim," in the language of the receipt (Exhibit B) issued by the defendant; that he cashed said check; and that none of the mining claims aforementioned were registered in complainant's name. The issue is whether or not defendant had appropriated said sum of P400.40 as claimed by the prosecution, or had applied it, with complainant's conformity, to the payment of the expenses of location and registration of other mining claims, as alleged by the defense. The principal witness for the prosecution was the complainant, who declared that, late in the year 1937, he learned that none of the claims referred to in Exhibit B had been registered in his name; that thereupon he demanded from the defendant the refund of the P400.40 covered by Exhibit A; that defendant did not reimburse this amount alleging that he had no money and had other obligations to meet; and that defendant suggested that articles, in the amount of said check Exhibit A, be taken from his store by the complainant, but the latter rejected the proposal because the prices of goods in other stores were lower. LLphil Testifying on his behalf, defendant asserted, however that on October 8 and 13, 1936, he filed with the proper mining recorder the affidavits Exhibits 6-A, 7-B and 8-B, stating therein that during the periods from September 10 to October 8, 1936, September 1 to October 8, 1936, and September 10 to October 13, 1936, respectively, he had "prospected, explored and discovered, hence located and staked," 96 mineral claims in Pambuan, 96 claims in Culasi, and 80 claims in Tarum, Culasi, municipality of Daet, Camarines Norte, in the name of several persons, among them complainant herein; that these claims include those alluded to in Exhibit B; that said affidavits were filed "for the purpose of priority in establishing location rights," while the registration of declarations of location was suspended, pending the enactment of a new mining law (Com. Act No. 137, approved on November 7, 1936); that the declarations of location for the 22 claims mentioned in Exhibit B were not subsequently filed because the assay reports Exhibits 9, 9-A and 9-B showed that the claims were bad or worthless; that upon being advised of this fact, complainant authorized the defendant to use the P400.40 covered by Exhibit A in the location and registration of other mining claims; that, in furtherance of this agreement, on December 23, 1936, complainant, together with other persons, executed the deed Exhibit 2, whereby they appointed and constituted defendant's brother, Eleno Ulpiano Pineda, as their attorney in fact and authorized him, on their behalf, "to locate, stake and prospect and otherwise obtain mineral claims anywhere" in the Philippines, "to enter into agreement or transactions with party or parties," and to register said claims, giving and granting unto him. "full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever, requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises," with full "power of substitution and revocation"; that pursuant to this authority, two groups, of 35 and 45 claims each, were located in Mambulao (now Jose Panganiban) Camarines Norte, and registered in the office of the mining recorder of January 8 and 18, 1937 (see Exhibits 10, 11, 14 and 15); that 2 of the claims thus located in Mambulao (now Jose Panganiban), Camarines Norte, and 2 claims located in Catanduanes, Albay, were registered in complainant's name on January 18 and 9, 1937 respectively; that 14 additional claims pertaining to these groups were on January 24, 1939, conveyed to complainant by virtue of the deeds Exhibits 3 and 4; and that the P400.40 in question were spent in the survey, location and registration of the 18 claims above referred to, at the rate of P27 each. Complainant denied that he had authorized the diversion of said sum of P400.40 for any purpose other than that set forth in Exhibit B and stated that to defray part of the expenses of location and registration in his name of several claims in Mambulao (Jose Panganiban), he gave the check Exhibit C, for P200, dated May 10, 1937. Defendant affirmed, however, that this check was delivered in part payment of complainant's vales for goods taken from the former's store, aggregating approximately P383.97 (Exhibit 18-40-A), for the unpaid balance of which complainant extended the vale Exhibit 42, in the sum of P183.87. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Albay rendered a decision convicting the defendant as charged and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor nor more than 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional , with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P400.40, with subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the main penalty, and to pay the costs. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, alleging that the decision is not supported by the evidence. Upon denial of said petition, he moved for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. Before this motion had been acted upon, and fearing that it may not suspend the period to appeal and that the decision may, consequently, become final, defendant filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, the court issued an order g ranting the motion for new trial, but this order was later revoked the court having lost jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the notice of appeal. Thereupon the record was forwarded to the Court of Appeals where defendant renewed his petition for a new trial. Acting thereon, on November 24, 1944, the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon ordered that the petition and the affidavit accompanying the same be "attached to the record and brought to the attention of the court when the case is considered on the merits." Appellant now contends in his brief that: "3. The trial court erred in not finding that the accused-appellant secured the sum of P400.40 from Jose Gimenez in bad faith and through fraud. "2. The trial court erred in not finding that the agreement, whereby the accused-appellant received the amount of P400.40 for the purposes mentioned in Exhibit B, was novated by a subsequent understanding between Jose Gimenez and the accused-appellant by virtue of which the latter was to locate for Gimenez claims in other municipalities. "3. The trial court erred in not finding that the accused-appellant complied with his obligations in connection with the delivery to him of the P400.40. "4. The trial court erred in not finding that PNB check No. 120087 for P200 (Exhibit C) was issued to the accused-appellant by Jose Gimenez in payment of certain vales signed by the latter when he bought goods from the store of the accused- appellant. "5. The trial court erred in not finding that no damage or injury was caused by the accused-appellant to Jose Gimenez. "6. The trial court erred in holding that the accused-appellant prepared his defense in advance. "7. The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of estafa under article 315, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code and in sentencing him to imprisonment for the indeterminate period of not less than two months and one day and not more than one year and one day of prision correccional , to indemnify Jose Gimenez the sum of P400.40, and to pay the costs." The first question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the motion for new trial filed by appellant with this Court should be granted. cdt The prosecution objects thereto upon the ground that Annexes A and B upon which the motion is based are not newly discovered evidence, for said documents must have been known to appellant and in his possession before and during the trial in the lower court. Although this fact may affect appellant's right to demand a rehearing, it does not necessarily follow that the Court has no power to order the same, if it is essential to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Referring to new trials granted by courts of first instance, Rule 117, section 5, of the Rules of Court, provides that "the court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence" (subsection [a]) and that "when a new trial is granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the evidence already taken shall stand, and the newly discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced , shall be taken . . . (subsection [b]. Rule 120, section 14, of said Rules, authorizes the Court of Appeals to "remand the case to the court of first instance for new trial or retrial," without specifying, and, hence, without limiting, the grounds upon which this action may be predicated. Indeed, new trials have been ordered by the Supreme Court in several criminal cases upon grounds other than those mentioned in the statutes (U.S. vs . Repollo, 2 Phil., 195; U.S. vs . Laranja, 21 Phil., 500; U.S. vs . Jimenez, 34 Phil., 74). It would seem clear, therefore, that the Court may, in this case, grant the new trial prayed for, if the same is necessary for the proper administration of justice. With respect to whether or not a new trial should be ordered, it will be recalled that, although admitting that the 22 mineral claims situated in Pambuan-Culasi, referred to in Exhibit B, were not registered in complainant's name, appellant testified that the former had agreed thereto because said claims, according to the defense, turned out to be worthless for mineral purposes and to have the sum of P400.40 invested in the survey, location and registration of mining claims anywhere else; and that, accordingly, this sum was applied to the payment of the expenses of location and registration of several claims in Mambulao (now Jose Panganiban). On the other hand, in support of his testimony repudiating said alleged agreement, complainant positively stated that he issued check No. 120087 of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C), for P200, on account of these expenses, not in partial satisfaction of his vales in the store of the appellant, as testified to by the latter. Attached to said motion for new trial are photostatic copies of two documents, marked as Annexes A and B, which are alleged to be newly discovered evidence. Annex B, which is claimed to bear complainant's signature, reads: "Dear Mr. Pineda: I left my vales paid by check 120087 with my proposed reduction list. Deduct 168.16 instead my vale P183.87 from P400.40 deposited with you. I will take goods for P232.24 balance in my favor. But please complete me 16 claims from Sta. Cruz groups and I will reimburse all expenses including Pambuan-Culasi as soon as 16 claims are transferred in my name. JOSE A. JIMENEZ" Annex A, which is fully handwritten, allegedly, by complainant, is as follows: "1936 October 15 P10.82 October 20 30.46 November 10 4.21 November 30 9.45 December 8 3.53 December 22 4.40 1937 January 2 6.50 January 7 3.16 January 7 10.78 January 23 11.53 January 31 69.26 January 29 100.00 October 19 60.38 Deposit P400.40 October 19 .84 Vales 168.16 October 26 2.20 November 2 9.90 Credit balance P232.24" November 19/36 3.80 December 2/37 13.80 April /36 6.80 October 24/37 2.60 November 11/37 3.00 November 23/ .80 December 16/37 59.76 427.92 259.76 168.16" This Annex A is a list based upon the dates and amounts of complainant's vales (Exhibits 18 to 20, and 22 to 40-A) originally aggregating P439.77 (see Exhibit 41). Claiming that some of the prices therein charged are too high, complainant proposed the reduction thereof to the amounts set forth in Annex A, giving therein a total of P427.92. It appears, further, that complainant is indebted to defendant, as per receipt Exhibit 21, in the sum of P55.80, which, together with the amount represented by Exhibit C (P200), was deducted from the total of P439.77 in Exhibit 41, thereby leaving a balance of P183.97, for which complainant issued the vale Exhibit 42. Owing, evidently, to an error in writing, the sum therein given is, however, P183.87. Following the same process, although affected by a similar mistake in amount, the sum of P259.75 consisting, obviously, of the amounts of Exhibit C (P200) and Exhibit 18 (P59.76), instead of Exhibit 21 (P55.80) was deducted from the reduced total of P427.92 in Annex A, thereby leaving therein a balance of P168.16, which is proposed in the same list, as well as in Annex B, to be deducted from the sum of P400.40 covered by Exhibits A and B. For the resulting balance of P232.24, complainant proposed, in Annex B, to take goods from appellant's store. It is apparent that Annex A confirms Annex B and that both corroborate appellant's testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the check Exhibit C, which is the opposite of complainant's version. If genuine and properly introduced in evidence, Annexes A and B would, probably, impair complainant's veracity as witness and the weight of his testimony. Considering that the latter constitutes the main evidence for the prosecution, in the same manner as the defense is based upon appellant's testimony, the admission of said documents as proof might affect, therefore, the result of the case. This view was evidently shared by His Honor, the trial Judge, who granted the motion for new trial filed in the lower count, although the order to this effect was subsequently revoked it appearing that appellant had perfected his appeal prior to its issuance. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to pass upon the alleged errors assigned in appellant's brief and let the record of this case be remanded to the lower court for a new trial, for the reception of the evidence above mentioned and such rebuttal evidence, if any, as may be proper, all of which shall be considered together with the evidence already in the record, without retaking the same. LexLib It is so ordered. Montemayor, Pres. and Labrador, JJ ., concur.