PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO SALAZAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Salazar

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Emilio Salazar as the accused, and Salazar appears before the Supreme Court as the accused-appellant. The action is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, and the decision before us is the Court's resolution of the accused's motion for reconsideration. The case matters for a narrow but practical reason: it shows how the Supreme Court treats a motion for reconsideration that merely repeats defenses already passed upon, and it reminds the Bar candidate that a motion for reconsideration is not a second appeal.

Procedural History

The case travelled the ordinary criminal path. It was tried by the trial court, which rendered a judgment of conviction against the accused. The accused appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which rendered a decision dated May 8, 2013, affirming the conviction of the accused. From that decision, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration. The resolution before us disposes of that motion. The Court, through Justice Carandang, with Justices Rosario and Dimagiba concurring, denied the motion.

Facts

The decision text before us is a resolution on a motion for reconsideration, and it does not narrate the underlying facts of the criminal charge. What the text establishes is the procedural posture: the accused was convicted by the trial court, the conviction was affirmed on appeal, and it was again affirmed by the Supreme Court in a decision dated May 8, 2013.

After that decision, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration. In that motion, the accused raised allegations which, according to the Court, were not new. They were a mere reiteration of his defenses.

The Court observed that those very defenses had already been squarely traversed and completely considered in its earlier decision. On that basis, the Court found no justifiable reason to reverse or set aside its judgment affirming the conviction.

Issues

• Whether or not a motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates defenses already squarely passed upon in the Court's decision warrants the reversal or setting aside of a judgment of conviction.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court should grant the accused's motion for reconsideration of its decision dated May 8, 2013 affirming his conviction.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text before us does not quote or construe any statutory or constitutional provision. It rests entirely on the procedural rule governing motions for reconsideration, which the Court applied when it held that the allegations in the motion were not new and were a mere reiteration of defenses already considered. Because no provision is quoted or discussed in the decision text, none is reproduced here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration which raises allegations that are not new, and which merely reiterates defenses already squarely traversed and completely considered in the decision, furnishes no ground to reverse or set aside that decision. The Court put the point in these words:

Accused-appellant's allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are not new and a mere reiteration of his defenses which We squarely traversed and completely considered in Our Decision.

On the second issue, applying that standard, the Court found no justifiable reason to reverse or set aside its judgment affirming the conviction of the accused. It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration of its decision dated May 8, 2013.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration is not a fresh appeal and is not a vehicle for re-litigating matters already adjudicated. The rule a Bar candidate should retain is this: where the grounds raised in a motion for reconsideration are not new and are a mere reiteration of defenses already squarely traversed and completely considered in the decision, the motion must be denied, and the Court will find no justifiable reason to reverse or set aside its judgment. The doctrine is procedural rather than statutory, and it is stated in the Court's own language that such allegations are not new and are a mere reiteration of defenses already passed upon.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the judgment affirming the conviction of the accused, Emilio Salazar, stands.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a motion for reconsideration whose allegations are not new and are a mere reiteration of defenses already squarely traversed and completely considered must be denied. Examiners use this case in remedial law and criminal procedure to test the limits of a motion for reconsideration and the finality of a judgment of conviction.