PEOPLE V. LI KA KIM ALIAS ED (REMEDIAL)

The requisites of NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE in order to justify a new trial are that:

1. the evidence is discovered after trial;
2. such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
3. the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that if admitted, would likely change the judgment.

NOT ONE OF THE REQUISITES MENTIONED IS ATTENDANT. Appellant's PASSPORT could have easily been presented during the trial. then, too, the presentation of appellant's passport would hardly be material to the outcome of the case. Appellant was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as being the perpetrator of the crime.

There is merit, however, in appellant's contention that the court a quo erred in imposing the penalty of death. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure requires the recitation in the information of aggravating or qualifying circumstances in order to be appreciated as such. The use of a motor vehicle considered by the trial court in decreeing death penalty is inappropriate, that aggravating circumstance not having been aptly alleged in the Information.

The requirements are mandatory not only to afford the accused the right to object to the presentation of evidence showing such aggravating circumstances not so alleged but also to preclude the court from even taking such aggravating circumstances into account.

MENDEZONA V. OZAMIZ (REMEDIAL)

A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is concurrence of the following requisites:

1. the evidence had been discovered after trial;
2. the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
3. the evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably alter the result.

All 3 requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial.

SC finds that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners. As early as the pre-trial of the case, the name Judge Durias has already cropped up as a possible witness for the defendants, herein respondents. That the respondent chose not to present his is not an indicia per se of suppression of evidence, since a party in a civil case is free to choose who to present as his witness. Neither can Judge Durias' testimony in another case be considered as newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified to by Judge Durias' which were existing before and during the trial, could have been presented by the petitioners at the trial The testimony of Judge Durias has been in existence waiting only to be elicited from him by questioning.

Factual findings of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the SC which is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the SC to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, this rule is not without exception. If there is a showing that the appellate court's findings of facts complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the SC must discard such erroneous findings of facts. SC finds that the exception applies in the case at bench.

Simulation is defined as :the declaration of a fictitious will, deliberately made by agreement of the parties, in order to produce, for the purposes of deception, the appearances of a juridical act which does not exist or is different from that which was really executed. The requisites of simulation are:

1. an outward declaration of will different from the will of the parties;
2. the false appearance must have been intended by mutual agreement; and
3. the purpose is to deceive third persons. None of these were clearly shown to exist in the case at bar.

Contrary to the erroneous conclusions of the appellate court, a simulated contract cannot be inferred from the mere non-production of the checks. It was not the burden of the petitioners to prove so. It is significant to note that the deed of absolute sale is a notarized document duly acknowledged before a notary public. As such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.