REOPENING
OF TRIAL
Rule
119, Section 24, Rules of Court
Section 24. Reopening. —
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 miscarrage of
justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the
order granting it.
What are the 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. (Cabarles vs. Judge Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007)
When must a motion to reopen
trial be filed?
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. (Cabarles vs. Judge Maceda,
ibid)
Who may reopen a trial?
The
judge on his own initiative or upon motion.
Is hearing required?
Yes.
While
Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case before judgment is rendered, Section
24 requires that a hearing must first be conducted. Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003 Order
without notice and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an
opportunity to manifest their position on the matter. This failure, to our mind, constitutes grave
abuse of discretion and goes against the due process clause of the Constitution
which requires notice and opportunity to be heard. The issuance of the said order, without the
benefit of a hearing, is contrary to the express language of Section 24, Rule
119. Since Judge Maceda issued the questioned order without complying with the
third requirement of Section 24, that there be a hearing conducted before the
order to reopen is issued, then the assailed order must be annulled and set
aside for having been issued contrary to law and consequently with grave abuse
of discretion. (Cabarles vs. Judge
Maceda, ibid)
What is the purpose of the
rule?
To
prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Generally,
after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are
allowed to offer rebutting evidence only.
However, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of 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 governing a motion to reopen is the paramount interest of
justice. This remedy of reopening a case
was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. (Cabarles
vs. Judge Maceda, ibid)
Distinguish motion to reopen from a motion for new trial or reconsideration
The
reopening of a case for the reception of further evidence before judgment is
not the granting of a new trial (Alegre
vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-56923, May 9, 1988, 161 SCRA 226).
Motion for New Trial
1. Must be filed at any time before a judgment
of conviction becomes final.
2. May be applied for and granted only upon
specific, well-defined grounds set forth respectively in Rules 37 (Section 1)
and 121 (Section 2) of the Rules of Court.
3.
The case is opened again after judgment for the reception of new evidence and
further proceedings.
Motion to Reopen Trial
1. May
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.
2. The
reopening of a case is controlled by no other rule than that of the paramount interests
of justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial discretion of a Trial
Court; and its concession, or denial, by said Court in the exercise of that
discretion will not be reviewed on appeal unless a clear abuse thereof is
shown.
3. It is still possible to have trials or
hearings.
Motion
for Reconsideration
1.
Must be filed at any time before a
judgment of conviction becomes final.
2. May be applied for and granted only upon
specific, well-defined grounds set forth respectively in Rules 37 (Section 1)
and 121 (Section 3) of the Rules of Court.
3.
The case is not reopened for further proceeding. The court is merely asked to reconsider its
findings of law in order to make them conformable to the law applicable to the
case. The judgment will be based on the pleadings submitted by the parties.
Nothing to reopen when the prosecution
had not formally rested its case.
Strictly
speaking, however, there was no reopening of the cases in the proceedings
below. A motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either or both
parties have formally offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment.
In the instant case, the records show that on April 19, 1999, the prosecution
was directed to close its evidence and given 15 days to make its formal offer
of evidence. This order apparently arose from the manifestation of the
prosecution on April 16, 1999 that should they fail to produce witness
Abratique on the next scheduled hearing the prosecution would rest its case. On
April 19, 1999, which was the next scheduled hearing after April 16, 1999,
Abratique was absent notwithstanding notices, orders, and warrants of arrest. However,
on April 27, 1999, or before the prosecution had formally offered its evidence,
Abratique was brought to the trial court by the NBI. In its order of said date,
the trial court pointed out that the prosecution could move to
"reopen" the case for the taking of Abratique’s testimony. On May 7,
1999, the prosecution so moved, stressing that it had not yet formally offered
its evidence and that the substantial rights of the accused would not be
prejudiced inasmuch as the latter had yet to present his evidence. Appellant
filed no opposition to the motion. The trial court granted the motion six days
later. Plainly, there was nothing to reopen, as the prosecution had not
formally rested its case. Moreover, the taking of Abratique’s testimony was
not for the purpose of presenting additional evidence, but more properly for
the completion of his unfinished testimony. In U.S. vs. Base, we held that
a trial court is not in error, if it opts to reopen the proceedings of a case,
even after both sides had rested and the case submitted for decision, by the
calling of additional witnesses or recalling of witnesses so as to satisfy the
judge’s mind with reference to particular facts involved in the case. A judge
cannot be faulted should he require a material witness to complete his
testimony, which is what happened in this case. It is but proper that the
judge’s mind be satisfied on any and all questions presented during the trial,
in order to serve the cause of justice.
Appellant’s
claim that the trial court’s concession to "reopen" the case unduly
prejudiced him is not well taken. We note that appellant had every opportunity
to present his evidence to support his case or to refute the prosecution’s
evidence point-by-point, after the prosecution had rested its case. In short,
appellant was never deprived of his day in court. A day in court is the
touchstone of the right to due process in criminal justice. Thus, we are unable
to hold that a grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court when
it ordered the so-called "reopening" in order to complete the
testimony of a prosecution witness. (People
vs. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January
20, 2003)
0
Comments
