FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205822. February 17, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTHONY CASADOR AND DONALD ALBA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 17, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205822 — People of the Philippines v. Anthony Casador and Donald Alba. — We resolve this Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Clarificatory Motion 1 filed by accused Anthony Casador (appellant) from the 4 September 2013 Resolution 2 of this Court.
In the said Resolution of this Court in CA G.R. CR HC No. 00831-MIN, we affirmed the 29 March 2012 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), but modified it with respect to the damages awarded. The CA found appellant Casador guilty of the crime of murder, disclaiming that the appeal before it pertained only to appellant because the other accused, Donald Alba, "was already convicted and is serving sentence for the crime charged." 4
In his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Clarificatory Motion, 5 appellant argues that they received newly acquired evidence shedding light as to what happened to this case from the trial court level. It appears that in 2003, an Information was filed against Casador and Alba implicating them for murder by conspiracy. 6 Because Casador was not immediately apprehended, the lower court tried and convicted Alba ahead in a Decision rendered in 2006. 7 Consequently and on the same year, Alba filed his appeal with the CA through a private counsel. This appeal was docketed as CA G.R. CR HC No. 00509-MIN. 8 TSaEcH
Pending resolution of Alba's appeal, Casador was finally apprehended and convicted by the trial court in 2010. 9 Represented by the Public Attorney's Office, Casador appealed to the CA which docketed this as CA G.R. CR HC No. 00831-MIN. 10 At this stage, both appeals are pending before the CA, but they have not been consolidated accordingly.
In 2011, the CA in CA G.R. CR HC No. 00509-MIN (Alba) remanded the case to the lower court for new trial on the basis of Prosecutor Fundador Villafuerte's letter alleging newly discovered evidence — the testimony of Casador stating that he acted in self-defense, contrary to his earlier plea of guilt. 11 Moreover, it also directed the lower court to "issue the corresponding order entering a plea of not guilty on behalf of accused Casador and thereupon conduct regular trial and render judgment with respect to both accused Casador and accused Alba." 12 aEHASI
Meanwhile, in 2012, the CA convicted Casador in CA G.R. CR HC No. 00831-MIN. By way of automatic appeal, the Supreme Court in 2013 affirmed his conviction.
Hence, the pending motion before us.
Appellant Casador insists that "[my] humble concern, however, is what if a favorable circumstance or evidence resulted from the new trial held at the court a quo, which redounded to the benefit of appellant Casador, and the same conflicted or is opposite with the Decision of this Honorable Court, then an unwarranted two contradictory decisions would arise, which is sought to be avoided in submitting this motion for reconsideration before this Honorable Court." 13 He further maintains that there is no sufficient evidence to convict him because in the course of his struggle to parry the victim's attempt to stab him, he was not able to notice that the victim had already been hit and bloodied. 14 In effect, appellant alleges that his act was merely a self-defense mechanism. 15
We deny the motion.
First,this situation could have been avoided had the CA consolidated these related cases in accordance with its internal rules. 16 It had the opportunity to do so when the appeal of both Alba and Casador reached its level in 2010. Yet, it rendered two separate and conflicting Decisions, to the detriment of both the accused. Consolidation is resorted to because there is a need to minimize litigants' expenses in pursuing their appeal, 17 avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions, 18 avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expense. 19 DTSaIc
Second, while procedural infirmities complicate this case, we find no irregularity in the way trial was conducted at the lower court level. While appellant Casador pleaded guilty to the crime, the court a quo still ordered the prosecution to present evidence to support his conviction. 20 Thus, his conviction was not merely based on his plea of guilt, but also on the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself. 21 Even the appellate court, in convicting appellant, thoroughly examined the pieces of evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. There is no reason to order a retrial vis appellant Casador, for he was already afforded all the opportunities to develop and present his defense despite his plea of guilt. The case, however, may be different for Alba whose trial was conducted ahead of Casador, and who was not given the chance to utilize the latter's testimonies to assail the allegation of conspiracy. This matter is best left to the discretion of the lower court to which Alba's case was remanded for retrial.
Third, as to the merits of this case, we note that appellant has not presented any new argument as to the commission of the crime to warrant a reversal of his conviction. Other than making a self-serving assertion that it was the victim who attacked him, appellant has not shown evidence to counter the fact that it was he who was primarily responsible for the altercation and consequent death of the victim.
While it is the Court's principle that every litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, 22 to defer action on this matter and allow a re-trial in favor of Casador would only prolong the life of this case unnecessarily, when there is in fact a clear showing on the records that his conviction was based on all the evidence before the court.
WHEREFORE, the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Clarificatory Motion filed by appellant is hereby DENIED, and the 4 September 2013 Resolution of this Court AFFIRMED. Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to both appellant and Alba, the Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City, and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, for their guidance and information.
SO ORDERED." aCSDIc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, 40-49.
2. Id. at 35-39.
3. Id. at 3-19.
4. Id. at 3.
5. Supra note 1.
6. Records, pp. 27-28.
7. Rollo, p. 41.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 41-42.
12. Id. at 57.
13. Id. at 45.
14. Id. at 45-47.
15. Id.
16. Sec. 3, Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. See also People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 456 Phil. 707 (2003).
17. People v. Sandiganbayan, 456 Phil. 707 (2003), citing Sideco v. Paredes, 74 Phil. 6 (1942).
18. Id., citing Benguet Corporation, Inc. v. CA, 247-A Phil. 356 (1988).
19. Id., citing Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 15 June 1992, 209 SCRA 844, 849-850, per Padilla, J.
20. Records, pp. 28, 32.
21. Id.
22. Hilario v. People of the Philippines, 574 Phil. 348 (2008), citing Barnes v. Padilla, 482 Phil. 903 (2004).