THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 261959. September 19, 2022.]
MA. ANGELITA A. CARLOS, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 19, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 261959 — MA. ANGELITA A. CARLOS,Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent. —
After a review of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 including the Court of Appeals Resolution, 2 dated 23 June 2022, and the Decision, 3 dated 18 February 2022, in CA-G.R. CV No. 113066, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure of petitioner Ma. Angelita A. Carlos to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and for raising substantially factual issues.
In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. These questions must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. 4 Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. These exceptions are:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 5
Here, petitioner Ma. Angelita A. Carlos (Angelita) is essentially asking the Court to review the evidence presented, and find that she and her husband, Jessie Javier Carlos (Jessie), were able to prove that the subject properties were not illegally acquired, and therefore not subject to forfeiture.
Being civil in nature, 6 the quantum of evidence required for forfeiture proceedings is preponderance of evidence. 7 Angelita claims that their testimonial evidence should be given the same weight as documentary evidence, and as such be found sufficient to meet the threshold of preponderance of evidence to prove that their properties were not unlawfully acquired. 8
Preponderance of evidence is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 9 This means that the evidence of the petitioner should be juxtaposed with that of the respondent. Therefore, the testimonial evidence offered by Angelita must be weighed against the pertinent provisions of R.A. 1379, of which Sections 2 and 6 provide as follows:
Section 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. x x x
Section 6. Judgment. — If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property, forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State: Provided, That no judgment shall be rendered within six months before any general election or within three months before any special election. The Court may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or both.
In the Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, 10 this Court had the occasion to state:
"Where the government files forfeiture proceedings, it takes on the burden of proving the following:
1. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during his/her incumbency;
2. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other legitimate income; and
3. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same properties were acquired prima facie unlawfully.
After the government had established these, the burden to debunk the presumption shifts to the public officer or employee who must explain and adequately show that his acquisitions, even though they might appear disproportionate, were nonetheless lawfully acquired."
Here, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) was able to demonstrate that the properties acquired by Jessie during his incumbency as a public official or employee as Tax Specialist I and II were manifestly disproportionate to his salary and other legitimate income, if any. As such, the presumption arises that these were acquired unlawfully. The burden thus shifted to Angelita to disprove the same, Jessie having died during the pendency of the case.
By virtue of the presumption expressly provided for in R.A. 1379, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant after the Republic has proven that properties were acquired and that the acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate income of the defendant. The defendant is under obligation to prove that these are not from unlawful sources. This, Angelita failed to do.
The Court has consistently held that findings of fact are the province of the trial courts because the trial court is in a much better position to determine which party was able to present evidence with greater weight. 11
Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) are consistent in finding that Jessie and Angelita merely presented testimonial evidence in support of their allegations as to their sources of income and loans. Their documentary evidence consists merely of airway bills, which in no way translates to proof of source of income. No evidence was presented to support their allegations of earnings through the sale of jewelry, from the food stall in Recto, nor Angelita's salary from her jobs. Neither was there any evidence showing Jessie's additional income from playing the odds in cockfighting, buying and selling fighting cocks, check rediscounting, and buying gold and mining. There was also no evidence of loans, nor lenders, that were presented before the Court. 12 Jessie and Angelita were thus unable to overcome the presumption imposed by law.
The Court agrees with the RTC and the CA. It is an age-old rule in civil cases that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. 13 As such, Jessie and Angelita failed to discharge their burden of disproving that the subject properties were illegally acquired.
As to the second error assigned by Angelita, that she was unreasonably denied her right to present additional witnesses and evidence thereby denying her due process, this Court finds that the RTC and the CA correctly denied Angelita's Motion for New Trial for failure to sufficiently meet any of the grounds provided by Rule 37 of the Rules of Court:
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.
Angelita characterizes the violent and untimely death of her husband as an unavoidable accident that merits the grant of new trial. She claims that were it not for Jessie's death, the evidence of the winnings may have been presented by the petitioner's former counsel in the re-direct examination. 14
This claim deserves scant consideration as no rights of the petitioner were impaired. The RTC gave Angelita and Jessie sufficient opportunity to present all their evidence from August 2016 up to November 2017, a period of 15 months. 15 Jessie's death on 2 June 2017 notwithstanding, there was sufficient time to present the evidence on Jessie's P10 million winnings, as Angelita herself admitted that the alleged evidence was handed to their former counsel as early as January 2017. 16 The other witnesses Leonardo Medina and Atong Ang could have also been presented earlier had their testimonies been in fact indispensable to their case, in the view of petitioner and her counsels.
Section 1 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court allows a party to file a motion for new trial provided the following requirements are met:
(1) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) that such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
(4) that such evidence, if admitted, would probably change the judgment. 17
The absence of any of the requirements forbids the court from allowing the evidence sought to be introduced to be admitted in evidence. Clearly, if the allegedly newly discovered evidence could have been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered. 18
The requisites have not been met in this case. Whether it be the evidence of the alleged P10 million prize money winnings, the CD containing testimony from Atong Ang, or the testimony of Leonardo Medina, all three failed to meet the requisites given that these could have been discovered and produced at trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
Evidence that is not newly discovered may not be used as a ground to conduct a new trial to reopen a final decision. Such evidence is forgotten evidence. The Court cannot simply relax the rules of procedure and allow the presentation of forgotten evidence notwithstanding that the petitioner now insists that doing so will serve the highest interest of justice. 19
The Court NOTES the Submission, dated 6 September 2022, filed by Atty. Allan O. Salve, submitting the original copy of the verified declaration of electronic submission of the filed soft copy of the petition, which was inadvertently not attached to the petition when the same was filed.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Ma. Angelita A. Carlos is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution, 20 dated 23 June 2022, and the Decision, 21 dated 18 February 2022, in CA-G.R. CV No. 113066 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-26.
2. Id. at 45-46. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Raymond Reynold R Lauigan.
3. Id. at 31-43.
4. Republic v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393, April 4, 2018.
5. Datu v. Datu, G.R. No. 209278, September 15, 2021.
6. Almeda, Sr. v. Perez, 116 Phil. 120-127 (1962).
7. Supra note 4.
8. Rollo, at 18.
9. Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., 485 Phil. 683, 695 (2004).
10. Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, 692 Phil. 351-373 (2012).
11. SKK Steel Corp. v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 219599 (Notice), October 6, 2021.
12. Rollo, at 39.
13. Heirs of Reyes v. Calumpang, 536 Phil. 795-819 (2006).
14. Rollo, at 21.
15. Rollo, at 42; RTC Order dated 7 August 2018, at p. 5.
16. Id. at 93.
17. Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, 665 Phil. 297-312 (2011).
18. Dee v. Alba, G.R No. 181535 (Notice), August 17, 2016.
19. Id.
20. Supra note 2.
21. Supra note 3.