CIVIL PROCEDURE Newly Discovered Evidence Chua vs. People

 Chua vs. People

Chua issued several postdated checks to See. Checks were dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account. Despite demands, Chua failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed a Complaint for violations of 54 counts of BP 22 in MTC.

Chua argues that the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds only arises after it is proved that the issuer actually received a notice of dishonor and within 5 days from receipt thereof failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment. OSG avers that Chua’s contention involves a factual issue which is not within the province of a certiorari petition. OSG: that the MTC, RTC and the CA all considered the said document as a newly discovered evidence.

Several years later, See just found the demand letter. The prosecution thus prayed that it be allowed to submit a supplemental offer of evidence to include said demand letter. MTC convicted Chua of 54 counts of violation of BP 22 after it found all the elements of the offense obtaining in the case. RTC and CA affirmed MTC. Hence, Petition for Review on Certiorari.

I: WON the demand letter shall be considered as a newly discovered evidence.

No. The issues raised by Chua involve questions of law. Nevertheless, assuming that the questions posed before this Court are indeed factual, the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are not proper subject of certiorari petition admits of exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the lower courts failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case. The Court finds the said exception applicable in the instant case. Clearly, the petition deserves the consideration of this Court. The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offenses charged.

At any rate, the demand letter dated deserves no weight not only because it does not qualify as a newly discovered evidence within the purview of the law but also because of its doubtful character. The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion; he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.⁴³

"Under the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment."⁴⁴

In this case, the Court holds that the demand letter does not qualify as a newly discovered evidence. Per See’s statements in his affidavit, the said evidence was already known to him at the time he filed his complaint against Chua. It was also apparently available considering that it was just kept in his house. Undeniably, had See exercised reasonable diligence, he could have promptly located the said demand letter and presented it during trial. However, the circumstances suggest otherwise.

Chua’s acquittal, however, does not entail the extinguishment of his civil liability for the dishonored checks. Chua is acquitted.