Lumanog v. Salazar, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 13, 1996, retired Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla was killed in an ambush along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. Police investigation led to the arrest of petitioners Lenido Lumanog, SPO2 Cesar Fortuna, Rameses De Jesus, Augusto Santos, and others. Informations for murder, theft, and illegal possession of firearms were filed. Procedural History: After joint trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103, convicted Lenido Lumanog, SPO2 Cesar Fortuna, Rameses De Jesus, Joel De Jesus, and Augusto Santos of murder, sentencing them to death, while Arturo Napolitano and Lorenzo Delos Santos were acquitted. Separate charges for theft and illegal possession of firearms were dismissed for lack of evidence. Petitioners filed various motions for reconsideration and new trial, including a supplement raising the alleged involvement of the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB) in the killing, all of which the RTC denied. The RTC also denied an urgent independent motion to present vital evidence regarding the ABB angle and issued three orders dated January 25, 26, and 28, 2000, which are the subject of the petition. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the RTC's orders denying them the opportunity to present evidence on the alleged role of the ABB in the ambush-slay of Col. Abadilla, arguing that if the ABB was responsible, they should be acquitted. They also sought the inhibition of the respondent judge for alleged bias.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the orders of the trial court when the case is already on automatic review. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motions for reconsideration and new trial, specifically the supplement and addendum raising the ABB angle and seeking to present additional evidence. Whether the evidence sought to be presented regarding the ABB's alleged involvement constitutes newly discovered evidence. Whether the testimony of Fr. Roberto Reyes regarding the Omega wristwatch and information from an alleged ABB member is admissible. Whether the petitioners' allegation of bias and partiality against the respondent judge is meritorious.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari was improper. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders. The alleged responsibility of the ABB was raised belatedly and the evidence sought to be presented did not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence, being either available during trial or hearsay. Allegations of bias can be raised in the main case on automatic review.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to question orders of the trial court when the main case, involving a death penalty conviction, is already pending before the Supreme Court on automatic review. Such orders should be raised as errors in the appeal or in the main case itself. The Court emphasized that the purpose of certiorari is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and not to correct errors of judgment or procedure that can be rectified through appeal. On the denial of motions for reconsideration and new trial: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge in denying the petitioners' motions. The supplement to the motion for reconsideration, which was treated as a motion for new trial, was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing such motions. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for new trial must be filed before a judgment of conviction becomes final, typically within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice thereof. The petitioners' motion was filed long after the Joint Decision was promulgated. On the requisites of newly discovered evidence: The Supreme Court reiterated the requisites for newly discovered evidence under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: (a) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) it could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material and of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. The Court found that the evidence sought to be presented, such as newspaper reports and intelligence materials, were not newly discovered as they could have been presented during the trial with due diligence. The Omega wristwatch was deemed immaterial, and the testimony regarding it was hearsay. On the admissibility of evidence and the ABB angle: The Court held that the testimony of Fr. Roberto Reyes concerning the Omega wristwatch and information allegedly from an ABB member would be hearsay. For such testimony to be admissible, the alleged ABB member would need to testify in court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ABB angle was raised for the first time in a supplement to a motion for reconsideration, which was considered a belated attempt to shift criminal responsibility. The Court also found the document granting amnesty to Wilfredo Batongbakal irrelevant as Batongbakal was not privy to the commission of the murder. The additional evidence was considered merely corroborative to the defense of alibi and denial. The petitioners' alternative prayer for the Supreme Court to conduct hearings and receive evidence on the ABB angle was denied. The Court reiterated its established principle that it is not a trier of facts. Its role in cases on automatic review is to review the records and determine if the trial court committed reversible error based on the evidence presented and admitted during the trial, not to receive new evidence or conduct further factual investigations. On the allegation of bias: The Court stated that the petitioners' allegations of bias and partiality against the respondent judge could be taken up and discussed in their brief filed in the main case pending before the Supreme Court, which pertains to the automatic review of the trial court's Joint Decision.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper to question trial court orders that may be taken up in the main case already on automatic review before the Supreme Court. Motions for new trial or reconsideration, especially those raising new theories or evidence, must comply with procedural rules regarding timeliness and the requisites of newly discovered evidence, which include diligence in discovery and materiality that would likely change the judgment. Hearsay evidence, lacking the testimony of the direct source, is generally inadmissible and insufficient to warrant a new trial.