People v. Lao Wan Sing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Lao Wan Sing was charged with arson in the Court of First Instance of Aklan. The trial court found him guilty, with the aggravating circumstance under Article 14, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Procedural History: On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's decision. Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, specifically the affidavits of two prosecution witnesses, Guillermo I. Vidal and Jose Narce, who recanted their testimonies. This motion was initially deferred and later denied. A second motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed, again emphasizing the recantations and alleged improbabilities in the prosecution's evidence. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of Jose Narce, Guillermo Vidal, Coronacion Peñaflor, and Dr. Iluminado Motus. The Petition: The appellant, through new counsel, filed a second motion for reconsideration or new trial, highlighting the recantations of witnesses Narce and Vidal, the alleged improbabilities in the prosecution's testimonies, and arguing that the facts surrounding the fire indicated it was caused by the first fire and not by the appellant. The appellant contended that the defense had established his innocence.
Issue(s)
Whether the recantation of prosecution witnesses constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Whether the remaining evidence, after considering the recantations, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the language used by former counsel in a motion for reconsideration warrants contempt of court.
Ruling
The Court resolved to grant the new trial as prayed for in the second motion for reconsideration or new trial. The decision of the trial court, the decision of this Court affirming it, and the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration or new trial were set aside, and the case was remanded to the court of origin for a new trial. Regarding the contempt charge, the Court required former counsel, Atty. Vicente J. Francisco, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of granting a new trial based on recantation: The Court held that while recanting testimony is often regarded as unreliable, especially when it involves a confession of perjury, a new trial may be granted if there is no other credible evidence to support the judgment of conviction besides the testimonies of the retracting witnesses. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the State is as interested as the accused in ensuring that an innocent person is acquitted. Therefore, the rules governing motions for new trial based on retractions should be construed and applied liberally, particularly when such retractions might reveal weaknesses in the State's evidence, tip the scales in favor of the accused, or create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. The retractions of witnesses Narce and Vidal were considered newly discovered evidence, as they were obtained after the trial court's decision and while the case was pending appeal, and they appeared to be material evidence that could change the judgment. The Court cited People vs. Bocar and U.S. vs. Dacir, et al. to support the granting of new trials in exceptional instances where the judgment of conviction relies solely on the testimony of a witness who later recants or makes contradictory statements. On the sufficiency of remaining evidence: The Court meticulously examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It noted that if the recantations of Vidal and Narce were true, there would be little left to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of Coronacion Peñaflor was deemed insufficient for positive identification as she only heard a voice she recognized as the appellant's and did not see him in the kitchen. Furthermore, her testimony contained contradictions and inherent improbabilities, making it unreliable on its own. The Court concluded that if the testimonies of Narce and Vidal were eliminated, there would be no evidence to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thus necessitating an inquiry into the truthfulness of their recantations. On the contempt charge: The Court found that the language used by Atty. Vicente J. Francisco in his motion for reconsideration, referring to the ponente as a "parrot" and questioning the integrity of the Court's decision-making process, was disrespectful and disparaging. Recalling a previous warning given to Atty. Francisco in Salcedo v. Hernandez for similar conduct, the Court resolved to require him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court for these epithets and statements.
Main Doctrine
A new trial may be granted when the recantation of prosecution witnesses, if true, leaves no credible and positive identification of the accused, and the motion for new trial is based on newly discovered evidence that may change the judgment.