PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORMAN AMPARADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Norman Amparado was found
guilty by the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
del Norte, Branch I, Dipolog City, of the crime of
Murder for the death of one Manuel Maghanoy.  He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim the sum of P12,000.00 and the cost of suit.^[1]
On appeal, this Court affirmed said judgment with the modification that the
civil liability should be increased to P30,000.00.^[2] Accused-appellant now seeks a new
trial, citing as grounds therefor:  [1] the discovery of new and material
evidence; [2] errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial
prejudicial to his substantive rights as an accused; and, [3] interest of
substantial justice and avoidance of a failure of justice.  Plaintiff-appellee
People of the Philippines
thru the Solicitor-General opposes said motion.

The newly-discovered evidence relied upon by accused-appellant
consists of the testimonies of Antonio Cachin, Jr.,
Manuel Henry Auza and Violeta
Amparado. 
While, as contended by the Solicitor, the testimony of Violeta Amparado could not be
considered as newly-discovered nor could it materially affect the judgment,
said testimony being merely cumulative in character, We find the proposed
testimonies of Antonio Cachin, Jr., and Manuel Henry Auza to be newly-discovered and of sufficient weight and
character as to alter the outcome of the case.

In his affidavit attached to the motion under consideration,
accused-appellant explained in detail why the evidence could not, even with the
use of reasonable diligence, be presented at the trial and how he happened to
discover them.  The pertinent portion of
his affidavit reads:

“Q
– During the trial of said criminal case
and the pendency of its appeal, where did you reside?

A  –   In Ilaya, Dapitan City.

Q  –   Where was your lawyer, Atty. Godardo Ad. Jacinto, also residing within that period?

A  –   In the Poblacion, Dapitan City.

Q  –   During the trial and the pendency
of the appeal in said criminal case, did you and your counsel exert earnest
efforts and reasonable diligence to locate, discover and produce evidence and
witnesses for your defense?

A  –   Yes, sir.

Q  –   And, who were the witnesses that you were
able to produce during the trial for your defense?

A  –   Only those witnesses who testified for the
defense as shown in the case record.

Q  –   According to the evidence on record, the
prosecution contended that late Manuel Maghanoy was
stabbed by you, by means of treachery, while he was walking in the road; while
you contended that you stabbed Manuel Maghanoy in
self-defense and/or to repel his unlawful aggression in the house where you
were staying as a boarder; during the trial were you able to produce or present
as witness or witnesses any person or persons who were the first to render
assistance to the deceased immediately after the incident in the house?

A  –   No, sir.

Q  –   During the trial, were you able to present
any witness or witnesses who may be in the road while the incident was taking
place in the house and when Manuel Maghanoy went out
to the road after having been stabbed?

A  –   No, sir.

Q  –   Why, please state the reason when according
to you, you exerted earnest effort and reasonable diligence to produce evidence
and witnesses for your defense during the trial?

A  –   Because I did not know then of any person or persons who
were in the road and able to render assistance to late Manuel Maghanoy after he was stabbed, considering that after the
stabbing in self-defense, I was just inside the house; when I went with the
Policemen that same evening, Manuel Maghanoy was no
longer there and during the trial and the pendency of
the appeal, I did not go back to the scene, premises and environment of the
incident at Estaka, Dipolog
City, to gather information as to the possibility of any person or persons who
might have rendered assistance to Manuel Maghanoy
after he was stabbed in the house or who could be present in the road when the
incident happened, for fear of retaliation from his relatives and friends,
especially that I received information that they were hunting me.

Q  –   As of April
1, 1969, did you already know Antonio Cachin,
Jr. and Manuel Henry Auza?

A  –   I have seen Antonio Cachin,
Jr. in Saint Vincent’s College where I was studying but we were
never friends; but I have never known Manuel Henry Auza.

Q  –   After that incident on April 1, 1969, have you seen again Antonio Cachin, Jr.?

A  –   No, sir, because I stopped studying in Saint Vincent’s
College for eight [8] years and
I stayed and lived in our home place in Ilaya, Dapitan City and I did not go to Saint Vincent’s College
premises within those years due to my fear of retaliation.  When I resumed my studies in the school year
1977-1978, Antonio Cachin, Jr. was no longer studying
in said school.  And I did not meet him
again.

Q  –   When, for the first time did you discover
that Antonio Cachin, Jr. and Manuel Henry Auza were present in the road in front of the home of Deling Velasco when the incident between Manuel Maghanoy and you happened in the house where you were
boarding and that they were the first persons who rendered assistance to Manuel
Maghanoy after he was wounded by you in self-defense
or to repel his unlawful aggression?

A  –   Only after I received a copy of the decision
of the Honorable Supreme Court on October
15, 1985.

Q  –   How did you discover it?

A  –   After I
received the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, I went to Dipolog City
to look for a lawyer for an advice or consultation.  Coincidentally, I met Roseller
Ladera who was one of the prosecution witnesses and I
regretably told him that I was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment principally due to the testimony of Rogelio Patangan, and Roseller Ladera told me that it was surprising for the reason that
Rogelio Patangan was not present during the incident,
it was a certain Antonio Cachin, Jr. and his
companion who were present based on what he knew.

Q  –   And so, what did you do then?

A  –   I exerted
earnest effort to contact Antonio Cachin, Jr.  When I have contacted him, he related to me
everything about the incident of April 1, 1969 involving the late Manuel Maghanoy and he told me farther that he and Manuel Henry Auza were there present and they were the first persons who
were able to render assistance to Manuel Maghanoy and
that the person named Rogelio Patangan was not there
present.

Q  –   When did you met [sic] Roseller
Ladera?

A  –   On October 29, 1985, but it took me
some few days until I was able to contact Antonio Cachin,
Jr. and Manuel Henry Auza.

Q  –   How were you able to contact Manuel Henry Auza?

A  –   Through Antonio Cachin,
Jr.”^[3]

Under these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the
evidence sought to be presented are newly-discovered as defined by the Rules of
Court.  Furthermore, the proposed
testimonies of Antonio Cachin, Jr. and Manuel Henry Auza, who aver to be the first persons to render assistance
to the victim immediately after the stabbing incident, if admitted, would tend
to show that the alleged eyewitness Rogelio Patangan,
whose version of the crime was given full faith and credence by the trial court
and sustained by this Court, was not present at the scene of the crime.^[4]
If this is true, then, the version of the prosecution might perforce fail and
that of the defense prevail. 
Consequently, the judgment of conviction could be reversed, or at the
very least, modified.

Finding that the evidence sought to be presented by
accused-appellant conforms to the requisites laid down by Section 2[b] of Rule
121 of the Rules of Court, the Court Resolved to GRANT
accused-appellant’s motion for new trial.^[5]

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of this Court dated October 3, 1985 is reconsidered and
set aside.  The judgment of the trial
court dated April 11, 1978 is likewise set aside and the records of the case
are remanded to the lower court for new trial pursuant to Rule 121, Section
5[b] and [c] of the Rules of Court, at which the evidence already taken shall
stand and the testimonies of Antonio Cachin, Jr. and
Manuel Henry Auza and such other evidence of both
prosecution and defense as the trial court may in the interest of justice allow
to be introduced, shall be taken and considered with the evidence already in
the record, and a new judgment thereafter rendered by the lower court.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 22

^[2]
139 SCRA 71

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 141-143

^[4]
Joint Affidavit, Annex 1, Motion for New Trial, pp. 135-138, Rollo

^[5]
People vs. Gensola, 34 SCRA 383