Paredes v.

Borja

Case Principle: The present rules on criminal procedure are as provided for in the
Rules of Court which took effect on 1 July 1940, and do not require that a motion
for new trial be verified. And while the Rules of Court also require, as in the
supplanted law, that an affidavit of merit be attached to support a motion for new
trial based on newly discovered evidence, yet the defect of lack of it in the
appellant's motions for reconsideration or rehearsing had been cured by the
testimony under oath of the appellant at the hearing of the motion for
reconsideration on 25 June 1958.

FACTS:

 The Chief of PNP subscribed and sworn to a complaint charging Catalan with
Malicious Mischief for pulling and destroying the corn plants of Lapora, a
tenant of Amparado, and filed it in the Justice of the Peace Court; that upon
arraignment, the respondent assisted by counsel de officio, entered a plea of
not guilty.
 Respondent judge sentenced him to indemnify the offended party and to
suffer 10 days of imprisonment.
 Respondent filed a an amended MFR alleging that in a civil case between the
respondent and his co-heirs on the one hand and Exaltacion Jagonia de
Amparado and her parents on the other hand, involving ownership of four
parcels of land the CFI of Occidental Misamis had ordered the therein
defendants to return possession to the herein respondent and his co-heirs
one-half of the parcels of land in question. For that reason he has a
legitimate claim of ownership to the parcel of land from where he uprooted
the growing corn plants and his liability was only civil and not criminal in
nature.
 Respondents prayed that the judgment of conviction rendered by the
respondent Justice of the Peace Court be set aside; that his plea of guilty be
withdrawn and substituted by another of not guilty; and that the case be
dismissed.
 On 12 June 1958, the respondent Justice of the Peace Court entered an
ordering setting aside its judgment dated 6 June 1958, ordering that a plea
of not guilty be entered for the respondent.
 In this regard, the petitioner filed an "urgent motion for reconsideration of
the order dated June 12, 1958, setting aside the Judgment," on the ground
that the respondent's motion for reconsideration which were in the nature of
motions for rehearing were not verified and not supported by affidavits of
merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of the respondent judge of the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration is proper

HELD:
 Yes. Before a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty become final the
Court may, in its discretion, set aside such judgment and allow a plea of not
guilty to be entered by the defendant. Acts done by an inferior court in
exercise of its discretion will not be interfered with by an appellate court in
the absence of grave abuse.
 The reasons of the respondent Justice of the Peace Court in setting aside its
judgment dated 6 June 1958 convicting the appellant of malicious mischief
and directing that a plea of not guilty be entered in lieu of that of guilty, is
that the appellant (the defendant in crim. case No. 488) asserts a valid
homestead claim and has a good defense and the respondent Court has
doubts as to his guilt.
 The appellee contends that the respondent Justice of the Peace Court should
not have entertained the appellant's motions for reconsideration because
they were not verified and not supported by affidavits.
 In support of his contention he cites the cases of Fiscal of Manila vs. Del
Rosario, and People vs. Damiao, where the rule is that after a judgment of
conviction has been entered in a criminal case, the motion filed for the
purpose of substituting a plea of guilty by one of not guilty is equivalent to a
petition for reopening the case, and must not only be verified but
accompanied by an affidavit of merit.
 Such rule enunciated in those two cases, decided on 25 August 1928 and 31
March 1932, respectively, while the law on criminal procedure was General
Order No. 58, in no longer controlling. The present rules on criminal
procedure are as provided for in the Rules of Court which took effect on 1
July 1940, and do not require that a motion for new trial be verified. And
while the Rules of Court also require, as in the supplanted law, that an
affidavit of merit be attached to support a motion for new trial based on
newly discovered evidence, yet the defect of lack of it in the appellant's
motions for reconsideration or rehearsing had been cured by the testimony
under oath of the appellant at the hearing of the motion for reconsideration
on 25 June 1958.