THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO GENSOLA, FIDELINA TAN AND FELICISIMO TAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Before the Court for consideration
are the second motion for reconsideration and new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence filed by accused–appellants Fidelina
Tan and Felicisimo
Tan (with leave duly granted), the
State’s opposition thereto,
appellants’ reply, and said appellants’ memorandum and the State’s reply
thereto, in lieu of oral argument, filed pursuant to the hearing on motion set by the Court on June 17, 1970.

The affidavits of Ernesto
Gargaritano, and more particularly, of Ildefonso Capinding and Restituto Ger­saneva (annexes A, B and C), whose
testimonies on certain crucial
matters could not be presented at the trial
due to no fault of the accused-appellants,
raise grave and substantial
doubt that the original judgment imposing the near-extreme penalty of reclusion
perpetua would
have been so rendered if the material testimonies of
these affiants were then introduced and admitted.  The Court took into ac­count its findings on
the evidence of record in its decision under reconsideration that there was
no evidence of conspiracy between the
accused and that “the command shouted by Fidelina,
‘Rufino, strike him’ was not the moving cause of the
act of Rufino Gensola.  The evidence shows that Rufino
would have commited the act of his own volition, even
with­out said words of command”.

The Court believes it
imperative, therefore, in order to assure against any possible miscarriage of
justice, to grant a reopening of the trial at which the testimonies of these
affiants and such other evidence of both prosecu­tion and defense as the trial
court may in the interest of justice allow to be introduced, may be duly
presented.

The Court’s judgment of September
30, 1969 is hereby
reconsidered and set aside, insofar as the accused-appellants Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan are
concerned.  The trial court’s original
judgment of February 8, 1965 against the said accused-appellants Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan
is likewise set aside.  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 evidence of the three above-named affiants 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.

Insofar as the accused, Rufino Gensola, is concerned, the appealed judgment against him, as modified by the Court’s
judgment of September 30, 1969, reducing his penalty from life imprisonment to
an indeterminate penalty of from 3 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 3 years
of prison correccional as maximum, has become final and stands, since no motion for reconsideration
thereof was filed on his be­half.  Let
the corresponding judgment against him be entered as of the date of its finality.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Barredo and
Makasiar, JJ., did not take part.