FACTS:

Rafael C. Dinglasan, Jr. was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing a postdated check that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. He appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, but was denied. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was also denied. Subsequent Motions for Reconsideration were also denied, resulting in a final and executory judgment. The prosecution then filed a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, writ of execution, and hold-departure order to prevent Dinglasan from leaving the country until he fully served his sentence.

Dinglasan filed a Petition for New Trial and, alternatively, for the Reopening of the Case based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence consists of affidavits and a transmittal letter that Dinglasan argues would change the judgment against him. The affidavits explain that Dinglasan made good on the dishonored check within five banking days from the notice of dishonor, a crucial element in convicting him. One affidavit was from the Executive Vice-President and Treasurer of Elmyra, who claims to have sent a Solidbank Manager's Check to Antrom to cover the amount of the bounced check. Another affidavit was from Encarnacion Vda. De Dinglasan, who corroborated the previous affidavit and stated that she found the transmittal letter among her late husband's documents and turned it over to Dinglasan.

Antrom opposes the petition, arguing that it should be dismissed due to procedural and substantive defects. They claim that the motion for new trial should have been filed within the reglementary period, which has already prescribed. Additionally, Antrom argues that the transmittal letter had already been attached as evidence in a previous petition filed by Dinglasan, thus failing to satisfy the requisites for newly discovered evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the instant petition was filed on time.

2. Whether or not a new trial or reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence should be allowed.

3. Whether or not there is evidence establishing that the accused-appellant asked for the return of the Combank Check in the same way that the PTB Check had been returned.

4. Whether or not the transmittal letter dated 8 October 1985 is considered newly discovered evidence.

RULING:

1. The instant petition was not filed on time. A Motion for New Trial should be filed before the judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.

2. A new trial or reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence should not be allowed. The alleged evidence sought to be admitted by the petitioner is not material and does not warrant a new trial. The evidence does not alter the judgment and would not exculpate the petitioner from liability.

3. The court agreed with the findings of the lower court that there is no evidence establishing that the accused-appellant asked for the return of the Combank Check in the same way that the PTB Check had been returned. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot claim that the whole indebtedness was still subject to final liquidation.

4. The transmittal letter dated 8 October 1985 was already offered as evidence in a previous case and was even annexed to the Petition for Review filed before the Court of Appeals. The court held that it is not newly discovered evidence and dismissed the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

• A Motion for New Trial should be filed before the judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.

• Finality of judgment is reckoned from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration.

• A second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or a final resolution shall not be entertained.

• Judgments of courts must become final at some definitive date fixed by law.

• A decision that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable, and it may no longer be modified even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, whether by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.

• The filing of a prohibited pleading cannot prolong the disposition of cases and allow a party to forestall the running of the period of finality of judgments.

• The finality of decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the party.

• The rule on completeness of service aims to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment, and processes beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure.

• In a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the applicant has the burden of showing that the new evidence complies with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.

• In determining the propriety of motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the guidelines from the Berry case are followed. These guidelines include showing that the evidence was discovered after the trial, it was not owing to the lack of due diligence that it did not come sooner, it is so material that it would produce a different verdict, it is not cumulative only, and the affidavit of the witness himself should be produced or its absence accounted for.

• The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the proffered evidence is a newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence. This question has a temporal aspect (when was the evidence discovered) and a predictive aspect (when should or could it have been discovered).

• Newly discovered evidence must be evidence that was discovered after the trial and could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

• When a case has already been decided and the losing party attempts to introduce evidence already presented in the guise of newly discovered evidence, it opens the floodgates to endless review of decisions, causing unnecessary delays in the disposition of cases.