Tan Ang Bun v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Tan Ang Bun, was charged with homicide, serious physical injuries, and damage to property through reckless imprudence. The information alleged that on August 26, 1973, while driving a Camaro along MacArthur Highway in Tarlac, the petitioner negligently overtook a Times Transit bus, colliding with a Datsun car. This collision resulted in the death of Eden Uy Po Teck, a passenger in the Datsun, serious physical injuries to the driver of the Datsun, Alfonso Go Ching Kae, and damage to the Datsun car amounting to P48,000.00. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tarlac found the petitioner guilty of all charges and imposed a sentence of imprisonment, along with various indemnities and damages. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified certain monetary awards, reducing some damages and deleting the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased due to a reservation for a separate civil action. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and/or a new trial, presenting affidavits from prosecution witnesses recanting their testimonies. The Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, denied this motion. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The core of his petition hinges on the legal effect of the recantations by four prosecution witnesses (Jesus Centeno, Jose de los Reyes, Alfredo de Dios, and Pablo Bernabe) and an affidavit of waiver and quitclaim from the complaining witness, Alfonso Go Ching Kae. The petitioner argues that these recantations, which assert he was not at fault and was in his proper lane, bolster the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals and demonstrate his innocence. He contends that these recantations, along with the dismissal of a related civil case and the concurrence of the Solicitor General, warrant his acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the recantation of prosecution witnesses constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial or reversal of the judgment. Whether the petitioner was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, serious physical injuries, and damage to property.
Ruling
The petition for review was GRANTED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution were REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new judgment was rendered ACQUITTING the petitioner of the offense charged, with costs de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of recantation and its effect on the judgment: The Court reiterated the principle that while recanting testimony is often regarded as unreliable, especially when it involves a confession of perjury, motions for new trial based on subsequent retractions are not favorably considered. However, an exception exists when, aside from the testimonies of the retracting witnesses, there is no other evidence to support the judgment of conviction. In such exceptional instances, the rules should be construed liberally, particularly when the retractions might show the State's evidence to be weak and unsatisfactory, could tip the scales in favor of the appellant, or could produce at least a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. The Court cited People vs. Lao Wan Sing and U.S. v. Dacir, et al., emphasizing that a new trial may be granted only in very exceptional instances where there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction other than the testimony of a witness or witnesses who have made contradictory statements as to material facts, and where such proof could lead the trial judge to a different conclusion. In this case, the recantations of the four prosecution witnesses, coupled with the affidavit of the complaining witness Alfonso Go Ching Kae and the dismissal of the civil case, bolstered the minority findings in the appellate court that the petitioner was not at fault. On the guilt of the petitioner for reckless imprudence: The Court found that the recantations of the prosecution witnesses, namely Jesus Centeno, Jose de los Reyes, Alfredo de Dios, and Pablo Bernabe, significantly undermined the basis for the conviction. These witnesses, who were initially presented as eye-witnesses to the accident, executed affidavits stating that their testimonies in the lower court were not truthful and contained errors or omissions. They now claimed that the petitioner was on the proper lane of the highway, traveling at a slow speed, and was not in the act of overtaking when the collision occurred. Their sworn statements indicated that the petitioner was in his proper lane immediately before and during the collision, contradicting their earlier testimonies that placed the petitioner in the wrong lane and at fault. Furthermore, the complaining witness, Alfonso Go Ching Kae, executed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was free from fault and liability, and waived all claims for damages. The civil case for damages arising from the death of Eden Uy Po Tek was also dismissed. Given these developments, particularly the recantations of the primary witnesses and the waiver of claims by the injured party, the Court concluded that the evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction was rendered weak and unsatisfactory, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's guilt. The Solicitor General also concurred with the petitioner's recommendation.
Main Doctrine
Recantations of witnesses are generally regarded as unreliable, but may be given weight if they constitute newly discovered evidence that could alter the judgment, especially when there is no other evidence to sustain the conviction.