TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.L52728January17,1990
AVELINOC.AGULTO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,HON.FRANCISCOZ.CONSOLACION,PresidingJudgeofBranchIIofthe
CourtofFirstInstanceofDavaoandthePEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
FedericoY.Alikpalaforpetitioner.

GRIOAQUINO,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisiondatedDecember10,1979oftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.No.06198,affirmingthetrialcourt'sorderdenyingtheaccused'smotiontoreopenthetrialforthepurpose
ofpresentingnewlydiscoveredevidenceinhisfavor.
OnApril23,1970,aninformationforbigamywasfiledagainstthepetitioner,AvelinoC.Agultoallegingasfollows:
ThatonoraboutDecember30,1968,inheCityofDavao,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionof
this Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused, having been previously united in lawful
marriage with one Maria Pilar Gaspar, which marriage is still in force and subsisting and without
havingbeenlegallydissolved,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslycontractedasecondmarriagewith
AndreaSuico.(p.11,Rollo.)
Afterthetrialwasfinishedandthepartieshadrested,butbeforejudgmentwaspromulgated,theaccusedfiledon
November 12, 1975 a motion to reopen the trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e., a copy of a
marriage contract between Andrea Suico and one Romeo Vergeire supposedly contracted on July 19, 1960, or
beforeAndrea'smarriagetothepetitioner.
OnMarch23,1976,thecourtdeniedthemotiononthegroundthatitwasfiledtoolatebecausetheaccused,with
duediligence,couldhavediscoveredthesocallednewlydiscoveredevidencesoonerandcouldhavepresented
it during the trial, it appearing that he was appraised of the alleged marriage of Andrea Suico and Romeo
VergeireonOctober17,1972yet.
Petitioner'smotionforreconsiderationofthecourt'sorderwasalsodenied.Hethenfiledapetitionforcertiorariin
theCourtofAppealsallegingthattherespondentJudgegravelyabusedhisdiscretioninrefusingtoallowhimto
adducethenewlydiscoveredevidencewhichwouldhaveshownthathissecondmarriageonDecember30,1968
toAndreaSuicowasnullandvoidbecausethelatterwaspreviouslymarriedonJuly19,1960toacertainRomeo
Vergeirethatsaidevidencewasnotavailabletopetitioneratthetimeofthepresentationofhisevidencebutonly
afterthepartieshadrestedtheircase.
Therespondentsopposedthepetitioncontendingamongothers,thattheallegednewlydiscoveredevidence(the
marriagecontractbetweenAndreaSuicoandRomeoVergeire)doesnotbearthesealofthejusticeofthepeace
whosolemnizedthemarriage.TheCourtnotes,moreover,thatthedocumentdoesnotindicatethemunicipality
and the province where the municipal court is located. The xerox copy of the alleged marriage contract is not
properly certified and authenticated, and, on its face it appears that the marriage was celebrated without a
marriagelicense(p.21Rollo).
TheCourtofAppealsdeniedthepetitionforcertiorariforlackofmerit.Hence,thispetitionforreview.
The issue boils down to whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court gravely abused their discretion in
refusingtoreopenthetrial.
AdistinctionshouldbemadebetweenaMotionforNewTrialandaMotiontoReopenTrial.
AMotionforNewTrialmaybefiledafterjudgmentbutwithintheperiodforperfectinganappeal(Sec.1,Rule37,
RulesofCourt).
AMotiontoReopenTrialmaybepresentedonlyaftereitherorbothpartieshaveformallyofferedandclosedtheir
evidence,butbeforejudgment.ThereisnospecificprovisionintheRulesofCourtformotionstoreopentrial.Itis
albeitarecognizedproceduralrecourseordevise,derivingvalidityandacceptancefromlongestablishedusage.
Thereopeningofacaseforthereceptionoffurtherevidencebeforejudgmentisnotthegrantingofanewtrial
(Alegrevs.Reyes,161SCRA226).
Amotionfornewtrialincivilorcriminalactionsmaybeappliedforandgrantedonlyuponspecific,
welldefinedgroundssetforthrespectivelyinRules37(Section1)and121(Section2).Ontheother
hand, the reopening of a case for the reception of additional evidence after a case has been
submittedfordecisionbutbeforejudgmentisactuallyrenderedis,ithasbeensaid,controlledbyno
other rule than that of the paramount interests of justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial
discretion of a Trial Court and its concession, or denial, by said Court in the exercise of that
discretionwillnotbereviewedonappealunlessaclearabusethereofisshown.(Emphasissupplied.)

Petitioner's motion to reopen the trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence of a previous marriage
between Andrea Suico and Romeo Vergeire, assuming the marriage was valid, was not supported by evidence
that said marriage was still existing when Andrea Suico wed the petitioner. On the other hand, the fact that the
fiscal did not charge her with bigamy is significant. Unlike Agulto, she was found by the fiscal to be under no
impedimenttocontractasecondmarriage.
Considering the defects of the xerox copied document which the accused Agulto claims to be his "newly
discoveredevidence,"thetrialcourt'sorderdenyinghismotiontoreopenthetrialwasproperlysustainedbythe
CourtofAppeals.Hismotionbearstheearmarksofamerelydilatorypleading.Still,ithassucceededindelaying
thiscaseforfourteen(14)years.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. This decision is immediately executory. Costs
againstthepetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,GancaycoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.
Cruz,J.,tooknopart.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation