THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOVITO AGUEL, SILVERIO AGUEL AND RAMON JALIKO, DEFENDANTS, SHEM JAKOSALEM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Jakosalem

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Shem Jakosalem, together with Jovito Aguel, Silverio Aguel, and Ramon Jaliko, for the crime of robbery with homicide arising from a hold-up of the La Moderna Jewelry Store in Cebu City in which the store owner, Restituto Ira, was shot to death. Jakosalem was convicted by the trial court and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. What makes the case matter for the Bar is what happened afterward: the Court set aside its own final judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on grounds beyond the letter of the Rules, because later developments cast grave doubt on the identity of the offender. The case is a study in the primacy of proof of identity beyond reasonable doubt and in the power of courts to relax procedural rules in the service of substantial justice.

Procedural History

The Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City tried Jakosalem and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify Aurora Ira for the lost money and valuables and to pay the heirs of Restituto Ira for his death, with costs. Jakosalem appealed to the Supreme Court. In a decision promulgated on May 19, 1980, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in its entirety. In that decision the Court rejected the appellant's claim of newly discovered evidence consisting of newspaper clippings, holding them hearsay and of no evidentiary value, and observing that the matter should have been raised promptly as a ground for a new trial while the judgment had not yet become final. Taking a cue from that statement, Jakosalem filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence on July 11, 1980. The Court required the Solicitor General to comment, and the Solicitor General submitted a comment that effectively recommended setting aside the decision of May 19, 1980 and remanding the case for new trial. The Court then resolved the motion in the decision now before us.

Facts

On or about the ninth day of June 1972, armed men held up the La Moderna Jewelry Store at the Labucay Building in Cebu City. They pointed their guns at Aurora Ira, the proprietor, and at a customer, ordered them to squat and bow low, tied their hands, and plastered Aurora's mouth to prevent her from crying out. They took assorted pieces of jewelry and cash amounting to about 160,000 pesos belonging to the spouses Restituto and Aurora Ira. On the occasion of the robbery, Restituto Ira was shot to death, and the robbers fled in a motor vehicle.

Jakosalem was arrested on June 18, 1972. According to the head of the police theft and robbery section, the police were led to him by an informer, who was killed a week after the arrest. When the police brought Jakosalem to the residence of Aurora Ira on July 15, 1972, she looked at him and told the police that he was not one of the robbers, although she later identified him as one of them, explaining that she had been afraid to identify him because she had no confidence in the officer who brought him. Jakosalem was charged, tried, and convicted, and his conviction was affirmed on May 19, 1980.

Meanwhile, events unfolded that had not been available at his trial. In November 1972 the authorities apprehended a gang of robbers. Edilberto Campo executed a handwritten extrajudicial confession on November 5, 1972 admitting participation in the La Moderna robbery and naming the other participants. Ramon Guevarra executed a similar confession on January 21, 1974, and Emiliano Paez on February 28, 1976. On December 2, 1975 the District State Prosecutor filed an information for the same offense and the same offended parties against a different set of accused. In that case Emiliano Paez made a judicial admission that he was the one who shot Restituto Ira. The District State Prosecutor, in a third indorsement dated July 10, 1978, stated that from the sworn statements of the witnesses and the extrajudicial confessions of some of the accused in that later case, the crime was committed by those accused and no mention was made of the participation of Shem Jakosalem. The other persons originally charged with Jakosalem were later arraigned and found innocent.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellant should be granted a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of the extrajudicial confessions, the judicial admission, and the subsequent information and prosecution of a different set of accused.
• Whether or not an appellate court may grant a new trial or retrial on grounds other than those specified in the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the rigid application of the rules of procedure must yield to the overriding goal of rendering justice and affording an accused every legal means to prove his innocence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Rule 124, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Power of appellate court on appeal. - Upon appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Court of First Instance for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case.

This provision matters because it does not specify the grounds for a new trial or retrial, leaving their determination to the sound discretion of the court on a case to case basis.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the motion. The Solicitor General conceded that the circumstances relied upon happened after the appellant's trial and conviction and while his case was pending on appeal, so there was no way he could have known of them during trial. The Court accepted that these circumstances constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a reopening of the case to erase all doubts relative to the appellant's guilt or innocence. The Court stressed that the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that proof of identity is an indispensable prop to any judgment of conviction. It noted that Aurora Ira first told the police that Jakosalem was not one of the robbers, and that Paez had admitted shooting Restituto Ira.

On the second issue, the Court held that the authority of an appellate court over an appealed case is broad and ample enough to embrace situations in which it may grant a new trial or retrial based on grounds other than those provided in Section 13 of Rule 124 or Section 2 of Rule 121. It relied on the doctrine that the Rules of Court were conceived to aid and not to obstruct the proper administration of justice, and that courts may suspend or exempt a case from their own rules for the purposes of justice. A new trial has been described as an invention to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.

On the third issue, the Court held that the rigid application of the rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice, which is to render justice where justice is due and to secure to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged.

Doctrine

The identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and positive proof of identity is an indispensable prop to any judgment of conviction. Courts should exercise caution in weighing evidence of identity, because observers may connect an accused with a crime on the basis of fancied resemblances or prejudgment. An appellate court may grant a new trial or retrial on grounds other than those specified in the Rules, for Section 11 of Rule 124 does not so specify and leaves the determination to the sound discretion of the court on a case to case basis. The Rules of Court are tools to aid, not to obstruct, the administration of justice, and the rigid application of procedural rules must bow to the overriding goal of rendering justice and affording an accused every legal means to prove his innocence.

Disposition

The Court set aside its decision of May 19, 1980 and remanded the case to the court of origin for new trial so that the accused could present his alleged newly discovered evidence, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the rigid application of the rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of rendering justice. Examiners use this case on newly discovered evidence, on the broad power of appellate courts to order a new trial or retrial, and on the relaxation of procedural rules in favor of substantial justice.