Petitioner Respondent: Cecilia Rivac, People of The Philippines
Petitioner Respondent: Cecilia Rivac, People of The Philippines
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p
The Facts
Total P439,500.00
In a Judgment 14 dated September 30, 2010, the RTC found Rivac guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced
her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered her to
pay Fariñas the amount of P439,500.00 and the costs of suit. 15
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish all the
elements of the crime charged, under the following circumstances: (a) Rivac
received the pieces of jewelry from Fariñas, as evidenced by the
consignment document which contains her signature; and (b) she failed to
either return said jewelry or remit its proceeds to Fariñas after the lapse of
the seven (7)-day period agreed upon by them, to the latter's prejudice. In
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
this regard, the RTC did not give credence to Rivac's theory that she was
only made to sign the consignment document as proof of her loan to Fariñas,
ratiocinating that absent any of the allowed exceptions to the parol evidence
rule, she is not allowed to present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the
terms of the said document. 16 It further pointed out that the only reason
why Fariñas had possession of OCT No. 0-936 was because Rivac herself
offered the same as partial payment, but the former ultimately decided
against accepting it as such. 17
After the promulgation of the aforesaid Judgment and before it lapsed
into finality, Rivac moved to reopen proceedings on the ground that she
intends to present the testimonies of Fariñas and a certain Atty. Ma. Valenie
Blando (Atty. Blando) to prove the true nature of her transaction with
Fariñas. 18 In an Order 19 dated January 6, 2011, the RTC, inter alia, partly
granted the motion insofar as Fariñas's testimony was concerned, as the
apparent revision of her recollection of events could not have been
anticipated during the course of the trial. 20 It, however, denied the same as
to Atty. Blando's testimony, opining that there was no showing that Rivac
could not present her during the trial proper. 21 Consequently, the Court re-
took Fariñas's testimony, where she "clarified" that she now remembered
that the consignment document never became effective or enforceable as
she did not allow Rivac to take the jewelry because she has yet to pay her
outstanding loan obligation plus interest. 22
HEITAD
In an Order 23 dated April 18, 2011, the RTC affirmed its assailed
Judgment. 24 It held that Fariñas's testimony was in the nature of a
recantation, which is looked upon with disfavor by the courts. Moreover, the
RTC pointed out that there have been various circumstances prior to the
promulgation of the assailed Judgment where she could have "correctly
recollected" and revised her testimony, such as when she: (a) sent a
demand letter to Rivac; (b) reiterated her demand during barangay
conciliation; (c) executed her complaint-affidavit for the instant case; (d)
paid the filing fee for the case; and (e) testified before the court. 25 Further
considering that the retraction does not jibe with Rivac's testimony, the RTC
found the same to be unworthy of credence. 26
The CA Ruling
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly:
(a) ruled that it was improper for the RTC to reopen its proceedings; and (b)
upheld Rivac's conviction for the crime of Estafa.
I.
Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
governs the reopening of criminal cases for further trial. It states in
verbatim: "At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction ,
the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case,
reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The
proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order
granting it." In Cabarles v. Maceda, 36 the Court expounded on the novelty,
nature, and parameters of this rule, to wit:
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in
the old rules but it was nonetheless a recognized procedural recourse,
deriving validity and acceptance from long, established usage. This
lack of a specific provision covering motions to reopen was remedied
by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on
December 1, 2000.
x x x Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the
following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening
must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2)
the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is
conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of
justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further
evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the
issuance of the order.
Generally, after the parties have produced their respective
direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only.
However, the court, for good reasons, and in the furtherance of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
justice, may allow new evidence upon their original case, and its
ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of
discretion appears. A motion to reopen may thus properly be
presented only after either or both parties had formally
offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment is
rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of
judgment and the only controlling guideline covering a
motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This
remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. 37 (Emphases and underscoring supplied) ATICcS
In this light, the CA clearly erred in holding that: (a) it was improper for
the RTC to reopen its proceedings because the latter court had already
promulgated its judgment; and (b) assuming arguendo that what it did was a
new trial, there were no grounds for its allowance. To reiterate, a motion to
reopen may be filed even after the promulgation of a judgment and before
the same lapses into finality, and the only guiding parameter is to "avoid the
miscarriage of justice." As such, the RTC correctly allowed the reopening of
proceedings to receive Fariñas's subsequent testimony in order to shed light
on the true nature of her transaction with Rivac, and potentially, determine
whether or not the latter is indeed criminally liable.
II.
Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in criminal cases
opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal
to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether
they are assigned or unassigned. 38 The appeal confers the appellate court
full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine
records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite
the proper provision of the penal law. 39
Guided by this consideration, the Court affirms Rivac's conviction with
modification as to the penalty, as will be explained hereunder.
Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC states:
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). — Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by
the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
III.
Footnotes
3. Id. at 50-51.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See id. at 33.
6. See id. at 34.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 53-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Francisco R. D. Quilala.
15. Id. at 64.
16. See id. at 58-59.
48. See id. at 260; citing Firaza v. People, 547 Phil. 573, 586 (2007).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
49. Entitled "AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND
DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE REVISED PENAL CODE,' AS AMENDED,"
approved on August 29, 2017.