Agulto vs. Court of Appeals

A motion to reopen trial, unlike a motion for new trial, is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and controlled by the paramount interests of justice, and its denial will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion.

Avelino C. Agulto was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Andrea Suico while his first marriage to Maria Pilar Gaspar was still subsisting. After the trial and the parties had rested their case, but before judgment, Agulto sought to present a marriage contract between Suico and one Romeo Vergeire, allegedly contracted before Suico's marriage to him.

On April 23, 1970, an information for bigamy was filed against Avelino C. Agulto, alleging that on December 30, 1968, he contracted a second marriage with Andrea Suico while his prior marriage to Maria Pilar Gaspar was still subsisting and legally undissolved. After the trial concluded and the parties rested their case, but before judgment was promulgated, Agulto filed a motion on November 12, 1975 to reopen the trial. He sought to present newly discovered evidence: a copy of a marriage contract between Andrea Suico and one Romeo Vergeire, supposedly contracted on July 19, 1960, prior to Andrea's marriage to him.

The trial court denied the motion on March 23, 1976, noting that Agulto had been apprised of the alleged Vergeire marriage as early as October 17, 1972, and could have discovered and presented the evidence sooner with due diligence. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Agulto elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, asserting that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion in refusing to admit the evidence, which would prove his second marriage null and void due to Suico's prior marriage. The respondents opposed, pointing out that the xerox copy of the marriage contract lacked the seal of the solemnizing justice of the peace, did not indicate the municipality and province, was not properly certified and authenticated, and showed on its face that no marriage license was used. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, prompting the present review.

• Newly Discovered Evidence: Petitioner argued that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to adduce newly discovered evidence showing that his second marriage was null and void because Andrea Suico was previously married to Romeo Vergeire.
• Timing of Discovery: Petitioner maintained that said evidence was not available to him at the time of the presentation of his evidence but only after the parties had rested their case.

• Defective Evidence: Respondents countered that the alleged newly discovered marriage contract does not bear the seal of the justice of the peace, does not indicate the municipality and province, is not properly certified and authenticated, and appears to have been celebrated without a marriage license.
• Due Diligence: Respondents argued that the motion was filed too late because the accused could have discovered the evidence sooner with due diligence, having been apprised of the prior marriage in 1972.

• Motion to Reopen Trial: Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court gravely abused their discretion in refusing to reopen the trial for the reception of newly discovered evidence.

• Motion to Reopen Trial: No. The trial court's denial of the motion to reopen was properly sustained, as the motion bore the earmarks of a dilatory pleading and the proffered evidence was defective.

• Motion to Reopen Trial: A distinction exists between a motion for new trial, which is filed after judgment and governed by specific rules, and a motion to reopen trial, which is filed before judgment and is controlled solely by the paramount interests of justice, resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court's denial will not be reviewed absent grave abuse of discretion. Here, the proffered evidence—a xerox copy of a marriage contract—was defective, lacking proper authentication and a seal. Furthermore, even assuming the prior marriage was valid, there was no evidence that it was still subsisting when Suico married Agulto; the fiscal's decision not to charge Suico with bigamy indicated she was under no impediment. The motion was deemed dilatory, having delayed the case for fourteen years.

• Motion to Reopen Trial vs. Motion for New Trial — A motion for new trial is filed after judgment within the period for perfecting an appeal and is governed by specific grounds in the Rules of Court. A motion to reopen trial is filed after the parties have rested but before judgment, is not governed by specific rules, and is controlled by the paramount interests of justice, resting in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Its denial will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.

• "The reopening of a case for the reception of further evidence before judgment is not the granting of a new trial" — This passage distinguishes the two remedies, clarifying that reopening is a separate procedural device.
• "controlled by no other rule than that of the paramount interests of justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial discretion of a Trial Court" — This defines the standard for granting a motion to reopen trial, emphasizing judicial discretion.

• Alegre vs. Reyes, 161 SCRA 226 — Cited to support the proposition that the reopening of a case for the reception of further evidence before judgment is not the granting of a new trial.

• Section 1, Rule 37, Rules of Court — Cited to define the period for filing a motion for new trial (after judgment but within the period for perfecting an appeal).
• Section 2, Rule 121, Rules of Court — Cited as the specific rule governing motions for new trial in criminal actions.

Narvasa, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred. Cruz, J., took no part.