rule121_custodiovsandiganbayan.docx

7/24/2019 Rule121_CustodiovSandiganbayan.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rule121custodiovsandiganbayandocx 1/7

[ G.R. NOS. 96027-28, March 08, 2005 ]

BRIG. GEN. LUTHER A. USTO!IO", A#T. ROMEO M. BAUTISTA, 2N! LT. $ESUS !. ASTRO, SGT. LARO L. LAT,SGT. ARNUL%O B. !E MESA, & ROGELIO B. MORENO, & MARIO E. LA'AGA, SGT. %ILOMENO !. MIRAN!A,

SGT. ROLAN!O . !E GU'MAN, SGT. ERNESTO M. MATEO, SGT. RO!OL%O M. !ESOLONG, A& OR!O(A G.

ESTELO, MSGT. #ABLO S. MARTINE', SGT. RUBEN A)UINO, SGT. ARNUL%O ARTATES, A& %ELI'AR!O TARAN,#ETITIONERS, (S. SAN!IGANBA*AN AN! #EO#LE O% THE #HILI##INES, RES#ON!ENTS.

R E S O L U T I O N

#UNO, $.+Before us is a Motion To Re-Open Case With Leave Of Court filed by petitioners who were convicted and sentencedto reclusion perpetua by the Sandiganbayan in Criinal Cases !os" #$$#$ and #$$## for the double urder of SenatorBenigno %&uino' (r" and Rolando )alan on %ugust *#' #+,".#/

0etitioners were ebers of the ilitary who acted as Senator %&uino1s security detail upon his arrival in Manila fro histhree-year so2ourn in the 3nited States" They were charged' together with several other ebers of the ilitary' beforethe Sandiganbayan for the 4illing of Senator %&uino who was fatally shot as he was coing down fro the aircraft of China%irlines at the Manila 5nternational %irport" 0etitioners were also indicted for the 4illing of Rolando )alan who was also

gunned down at the airport tarac"

On 6eceber *' #+,7' the Sandiganbayan rendered a 6ecision in Criinal Cases !os" #$$#$-#$$## ac&uitting all theaccused' which include the petitioners" 8owever' the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan were later found by this Courtto be a sha trial" The Court thus nullified said proceedings' as well as the 2udgent of ac&uittal' and ordered a re-trial ofthe cases".*/

% re-trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan"

5n its decision dated Septeber *,' #++$' the Sandiganbayan' while ac&uitting the other accused' found the petitionersguilty as principals of the crie of urder in both Criinal Cases !os" #$$#$ and #$$##" 5t sentenced the to reclusion

perpetua in each case"./ The 2udgent becae final after this Court denied petitioners1 petition for review of theSandiganbayan decision for failure to show reversible error in the &uestioned decision'.9/ as well as their subse&uent otionfor reconsideration".7/

5n %ugust *$$9' petitioners sought legal assistance fro the Chief 0ublic %ttorney who' in turn' re&uested the 5ndependent:orensic )roup of the 3niversity of the 0hilippines to a4e a thorough review of the forensic evidence in the double urdercase" The petitioners' assisted by the 0ublic %ttorney1s Office' now want to present the findings of the forensic group tothis Court and as4 the Court to allow the re-opening of the cases and the holding of a third trial to deterine the

circustances surrounding the death of Senator Benigno %&uino' (r" and Rolando )alan"

0etitioners invo4e the following grounds for the re-opening of the case;

5<=istence of newly discovered pieces of evidence that were not available during the second trial of the above-entitled caseswhich could have altered the 2udgent of the Sandiganbayan' specifically;

%> 5ndependent forensic evidence uncovering the false forensic clais that led to the un2ust conviction of the petitioners-

ovants"

B> % 4ey defense eyewitness to the actual 4illing of Senator Benigno %&uino' (r"

55There was a grave violation of due process by reason of;

%> 5nsufficient legal assistance of counsel?

B> 6eprivation of right to counsel of choice?

C> Testionies of defense witnesses were under duress?

6> Willful suppression of evidence?

<> 3se of false forensic evidence that led to the un2ust conviction of the petitioners-ovants"

555There was serious isapprehension of facts on the part of the Sandiganbayan based on false forensic evidence' whichentitles petitioners-ovants to a re-trial".@/

0etitioners see4 to present as new evidence the findings of the forensic group coposed of 0rof" (eroe B" Bailen' aforensic anthropologist fro the 3niversity of the 0hilippines' %tty" <rwin 0" <rfe' M"6"' a edico-legal practitioner' Benito <"Molino' M"6"' a forensic consultant and 8uan Rights and 0eace %dvocate' and %nastacio !" Rosete' (r"' 6"M"6"' a forensicdentistry consultant" Their report essentially concludes that it was not possible' based on the forensic study of theevidence in the double urder case' that C#C Rogelio Moreno fired at Senator %&uino as they descended the servicestairway fro the aircraft" They posit that Senator %&uino was shot while he was wal4ing on the airport tarac toward thewaiting %AS<COM van which was supposed to transport hi fro the airport to :ort Bonifacio" This is contrary to thefinding of the Sandiganbayan in the second trial that it was C#C Moreno' the security escort positioned behind Senator



%&uino' who shot the latter" The report also suggests that the physical evidence in these cases ay have beenisinterpreted and anipulated to islead the court" Thus' petitioners assert that the Septeber *,' #++$ decision ofthe Sandiganbayan should be voided as it was based on false forensic evidence" 0etitioners subit that the review by theforensic group of the physical evidence in the double urder case constitutes / 13c4r1 1c which wouldentitle the to a new trial under Rule #*# of the *$$$ Rules of Criinal 0rocedure" 5n addition to the report of the forensicgroup' petitioners see4 to present the testiony of an alleged eyewitness' the driver of the waiting %AS<COM van' S0O9Ruben M" Cantibuhan" 5n his affidavit subitted to this Court' S0O9 Cantibuhan states that he saw a an in blue

unifor siilar to that of the 0hilippine %irlines aintenance crew' suddenly fire at Senator %&uino as the latter was aboutto board the van" The an in blue was later identified as Rolando )alan"0etitioners pray that the Court issue a resolution;

#" .a/nnulling and setting aside this 8onorable Court1s Resolutions dated (uly *' #++# and Septeber #$' #++#?

*" .a/nnulling and setting aside the 6ecision of the Sandiganbayan rd 6ivision> dated Septeber *,' #++$ in 0eoplevs" Custodio' et al"' Case !o" #$$#$-#$$##.?/

" .o/rdering the re-opening of this case? .and/

9" .o/rdering the Sandiganbayan to allow the reception of additional defense evidencere-trial in the above entitledcases".D/

The 33 now is whether petitioners are entitled to a hr1 ra/ under Rule #*# of the *$$$ Rules of Criinal 0rocedure"

The pertinent sections of Rule #*# of the *$$$ Rules of Criinal 0rocedure provide;Sc4 &" New Trial or reconsideration" E %t any tie before a 2udgent of conviction becoes final' the court ay'on otion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused' grant a new trial or reconsideration"

Sc. 2. Grounds for a new trial. E The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds;

a> That errors of law or irregularities pre2udicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been coitted during thetrial?

: Tha a1 ;ara/ 1c ha3 13c4r1 hch h acc31 c4/1 4 h ra34a/

1/<c ha 13c4r1 a1 =r41c1 a h ra/ a1 hch > r41c1 a1 a1;1 4/1 =r4a/cha< h ?1<;.

===

Sc. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration" E The effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration arethe following;

a> When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities coitted during the trial' all theproceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and ta4en anew" The court ay' in the interest of 2ustice'allow the introduction of additional evidence"

b> When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence' the evidence already adduced shall stand andthe newly-discovered and such other evidence as the court ay' in the interest of 2ustice' allow to be introduced shall be

ta4en and considered together with the evidence already in the record"

c> 5n all cases' when the court grants new trial or reconsideration' the original 2udgent shall be set aside or vacated anda new 2udgent rendered accordingly" ephasis supplied>5n line with the ob2ective of the Rules of Court to set guidelines in the dispensation of 2ustice' but without shac4ling thehands that dispense it' the reedy of new trial has been described as Fa new invention to teper the severity of a

2udgent or prevent the failure of 2ustice"G .,/ Thus' the Rules allow the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors oflaw or irregularities pre2udicial to the substantial rights of the accused coitted during the trial' or when there e=istsnewly discovered evidence" 5n the proceedings for new trial' the errors of law or irregularities are e=punged fro therecord or new evidence is introduced" Thereafter' the original 2udgent is vacated and a new one is rendered".+/

3nder the Rules' a person convicted of a crie ay avail of the reedy of new trial before the 2udgent of convictionbecoes final" 0etitioners adit that the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criinal Cases !os" #$$#$ and #$$## becaefinal and e=ecutory upon denial of their petition for review filed before this Court and their otion for reconsideration"

<ntry of 2udgent has in fact been ade on Septeber $' #++#".#$/

!onetheless' they aintain that e&uitableconsiderations e=ist in this case to 2ustify the rela=ation of the Rules and re-open the case to accord petitioners theopportunity to present evidence that will e=onerate the fro the charges against the" We do not find erit in theirsubission"

0etitioners anchor their otion on the ground of newly discovered evidence" Courts are generally r/ca in grantingotions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence for it is =r3;1 that the oving party has had apleopportunity to prepare his case carefully and to secure all the necessary evidence before the trial" Such otionsare ra1 h <ra ca4 due to the danger of per2ury and the anifest in2ustice of allowing a party to allege thatwhich ay be the conse&uence of his own neglect to defeat an adverse 2udgent" 8ence' the oving party is oftenre&uired to rebut a presuption that the 2udgent is correct and that there has been a lac4 of due diligence' and toestablish other facts essential to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence".##/ ThisCourt has repeatedly held that before a new trial ay be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence' ;3 3h4 #> that the evidence was discovered after trial? *> that such evidence could not have been discovered and



produced at the trial even with the e=ercise of reasonable diligence? > that it is aterial' not erely cuulative'corroborative' or ipeaching? and 9> the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the 2udgent ifaditted" 5f the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the e=ercise of reasonable diligence' the sae cannot be considered newly discovered".#*/

These standards' also 4nown as the @Brr r/, trace their origin to the #,7# case of Brr 3. Sa 4>G4r<a.#/ where the Supree Court of )eorgia held;

%pplications for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence' are not favored by the Courts" = = = 3pon the followingpoints there sees to be a pretty general concurrence of authority' viH? that it is incubent on a party who as4s for a newtrial' on the ground of newly discovered evidence' to satisfy the Court' #st" That the evidence has coe to his 4nowledgesince the trial" *d" That it was not owing to the want of due diligence that it did not coe sooner" d" That it is so aterialthat it would produce a different verdict' if the new trial were granted" 9th" That it is not cuulative only E viH? spea4ing tofacts' in relation to which there was evidence on the trial" 7th" That the affidavit of the witness hiself should be produced'or its absence accounted for" %nd @th' a new trial will not be granted' if the only ob2ect of the testiony is to ipeach thecharacter or credit of a witness" citations omitted >These guidelines have since been followed by our courts in deterining the propriety of otions for new trial based onnewly discovered evidence"

5t should be ephasiHed that the applicant for new trial has the r1 of showing that the new evidence he see4s topresent has coplied with the re&uisites to 2ustify the holding of a new trial"

The hr3h4/1 34 in resolving a otion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the proferredevidence is in fact a Fnewly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence"G Th 34 4>hhr 1c 3 / 13c4r1 ha3 4 a3=c3+ a ;=4ra/ 4,i"e"' when was the evidence discovered'and a =r1c 4, i"e"' when should or could it have been discovered" 5t is to the latter that the re&uireent of duediligence has relevance".#9/ We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence ay be properly regarded asnewly discovered to 2ustify new trial' what is essential is not so uch the tie when the evidence offered first sprang intoe=istence nor the tie when it first cae to the 4nowledge of the party now subitting it? what is essential is that theoffering party had e=ercised ra34a/ 1/<c in see4ing to locate such evidence before or during trial but hadnonetheless failed to secure it".#7/

The Rules do not give an e=act definition of due diligence' and whether the ovant has e=ercised due diligence dependsupon the particular circustances of each case".#@/ !onetheless' it has been observed that the phrase is often e&uated with

Freasonable proptness to avoid pre2udice to the defendant"G 5n other words' the concept of due diligence has both a ;c4;=4 and a <441 >ah c4;=4. The ovant for a new trial ust not only act in a tiely fashion in gathering

evidence in support of the otion? he ust act reasonably and in good faith as well" 6ue diligence conteplates that thedefendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence' in light of the totality of the circustances and thefacts 4nown to hi".#D/

%pplying the foregoing tests' we find that petitioners1 purported evidence does not &ualify as newly discovered evidencethat would 2ustify the re-opening of the case and the holding of a third trial"

The report of the forensic group ay not be considered as newly discovered evidence as petitioners failed to show that itwas ipossible for the to secure an independent forensic study of the physical evidence during the trial of the doubleurder case" I a==ar3 >r4; hr r=4r ha h >4r3c <r4= 31 h 3a; =h3ca/ a1 3;4a/1c =r4>rr1 1r< h ra/, ;a1 hr 4 aa/33 a1 r=ra4 4> 3a1 1c. They citedthe aterials and ethods that they used for their study' viz:

M%T<R5%LS %!6 M<T8O6S

M%T<R5%LS;a" Court records of the case' especially photographs of; a> the stairway where the late Sen" %&uino and his escorts

descended? b> the part of the tarac where the lifeless bodies of the late Sen" %&uino and )alan fell? and c> theautopsy conducted by the !B5 Medico-legal tea headed by 6r" Mu.I/oH? and the autopsy report of the late Sen"Benigno %&uino.'/ (r" signed by 6r" Mu.I/oH and 6r" Solis?

b" The gun and live aunitions collected at the crie scene?c" % reference huan s4ull photos and J-rays of the sae to deonstrate wound location and bullet tra2ectory?d" The reports of interviews and stateents by the convicted ilitary escorts' and other witnesses?e" Re-enactent of the 4illing of %&uino based on the ilitary escorts.1/ version' by the ilitary escorts theselves in

the Bilibid 0rison and by volunteers at the !%5% Tarac?f" Aarious boo4s and articles on forensic and the edico-legal field.?/g" Results of :orensic e=perients conducted in relation to the case"

M<T8O6S;a" Review of the forensic e=hibits presented in the court?b" Review of TS!s relevant to the forensic review?c" Study of and research on the guns' slugs and aunitions allegedly involved in the crie?d" 5nterviewsre-enactent of the crie based on the ilitary1s accounts' both in the Bilibid 0rison where the convicts

are confined and the M5% now !%5%> stairway and tarac?e" Conduct of ocular inspection and easureents on the actual crie scene stairway and tarac> at the old Manila

5nternational %irport now !%5%>?f" Retracing the slug1s tra2ectory based on the autopsy reports and e=perts1 testionies using an actual huan s4ull?g" J-rays of the s4ull with the retraced tra2ectory based on the autopsy report and e=perts1 testionies?h" <valuation of the presented facts and opinions of local e=perts in relation to accepted forensic findings in

international publications on forensic science' particularly on guns and .gunshot/ wound in2uries?i" :orensic e=perients and siulations of events in relation to this case".#,/



These aterials were available to the parties during the trial and there was nothing that prevented the petitioners frousing the at the tie to support their theory that it was not the ilitary' but Rolando )alan' who 4illed Senator %&uino"0etitioners' in their present otion' failed to present any new forensic evidence that could not have been obtained by thedefense at the tie of the trial even with the e=ercise of due diligence" 5f they really wanted to see4 and offer the opinionof other forensic e=perts at the tie regarding the physical evidence gathered at the scene of the crie' there was apleopportunity for the to do so before the case was finally subitted and decided".#+/

% reading of the Sandiganbayan decision dated Septeber *,' #++$ shows a thorough study by the court of the forensicevidence presented during the trial' viz:

CO3RT :5!65!)S%s to the physical evidence

)reat significance has to be accorded the tra2ectory of the single bullet that penetrated the head and caused the death ofSen" Benigno %&uino' (r" Basic to the &uestion as to tra2ectory ought to be the findings during the autopsy" The prosectorin the autopsy' 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH' !B5 Medico-Legal Officer' reported in his %utopsy Report !o" !-,-**-@' that thetra2ectory of the gunshot' the wound of entrance having been located at the astoid region' left' below the e=ternalauditory eatus' and the e=it wound having been at the anterior portion of the andible' was Fforward' downward andedially"G %utopsy Report !o" !-,-**-@' <=hibit F!!!!-*-t-*G>

% controversy as to this tra2ectory cae about when' upon being cross-e=ained by counsel for the defense' 6r"Bienvenido MuIoH ade a significant turn-about by stating that the correct tra2ectory of the fatal bullet was Fupward'downward' and edially"G The present position of 6r" MuIoH is preised upon the alleged fact that he found the petrousbone fractured' obviously hit by the fatal bullet" 8e concluded' in view of this finding' that the fatal bullet ust have goneupward fro the wound of entrance" Since the fatal bullet e=ited at the andible' it is his belief that the petrous bonedeflected the tra2ectory of the bullet and' thus' the bullet proceeded downwards fro the petrous bone to the andible"

This opinion of 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH in this regard notwithstanding' We hold that the tra2ectory of the fatal bullet which4illed Sen" Benigno %&uino' (r" was' indeed' Fforward' downward and edially"G :or the reason that the wound of entrancewas at a higher elevation than the wound of e=it' there can be no other conclusion but that the tra2ectory was downward"The bullet when traveling at a fast rate of speed ta4es a straight path fro the wound of entrance to the wound of e=it" 5tis unthin4able that the bullet' while pro2ected upwards' would' instead of e=iting to the roof of the head' go down to theandible because it was allegedly deflected by a petrous bone which though hard is in fact a ere spongy protuberance'a4in to a cartilage"

Clear is proof of the downward tra2ectory of the fatal bullet? :irst' as 6r" 0edro Solis and 6r" Ceferino Cunanan' theiediate superiors of 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH' anifested before the Court' that' since the wound of entrance appearedovaloid and there is what is 4nown as a contusion collar which was widest at the superior portion' indicating an acute angleof approach' a downward tra2ectory of the bullet is indicated" This phenoenon indicates that the uHHle of the fatal gunwas at a level higher than that of the point of entry of the fatal bullet"

There was no showing as to whether a probe could have been ade fro the wound of entrance to the petrous bone" Outof curiosity' 6r" (uanito Billote tried to insert a probe fro the wound of e=it into the petrous bone" 8e was unsuccessfulnotwithstanding four or five attepts" 5f at all' this disproves the theory of 6r" MuIoH that the tra2ectory was upward'downward and edially" On the other hand' 6r" (uanito Billote and photographer %le=ander LoinaH witnessed the fact that6r" MuIoH1.s/ understudy' %le2andrino (avier' had successfully ade a probe fro the wound of entrance directly towardsthe wound of e=it" %le2andrino (avier shouted with e=citeent upon his success and %le=ander LoinaH proptlyphotographed this event with %le2andrino (avier holding the protruding end of the probe at the andible" <=hibit FJJJJJ-+-%G>

To be sure' had the ain bullet hit the petrous bone' this spongy ash of cartilage would have been deciated orobliterated" The fact that the ain bullet was of such force' power and speed that it was able to bore a hole into theandible and crac4 it' is an indication that it could not have been stopped or deflected by a ere petrous bone" By itspower and force' it ust have been propelled by a powerful gun" 5t would have been ipossible for the ain bullet to havebeen deflected for an upward course by a ere spongy protuberance" )ranting that it was so deflected' however' it couldnot have aintained the sae power and force as when it entered the s4ull at the astoid region so as to crac4 theandible and a4e its e=it there"

But what caused the fracture of the petrous boneK Was there a cause of the fracture' other than that the bullet had hit itK6r" 0edro Solis' aintaining the conclusion that the tra2ectory of the bullet was downward' gave the following alternativee=planations for the fracture of the petrous bone;

:irst' the petrous bone could have been hit by a splinter of the ain bullet' particularly' that which was found at theteporal region? and'

Second' the fracture ust have been caused by the 4inetic force applied to the point of entrance at the astoid regionwhich had the tendency of being radiated towards the petrous bone"

Thus' the fracture in the occipital bone' of the teporal bone' and of the parietal bone' 6r" 0edro Solis pointed out' hadbeen caused by the aforesaid 4inetic force" When a force is applied to the astoid region of the head' 6r" 0edro SolisephasiHed' a radiation of forces is distributed all over the cranial bac4' including' although not liited to' the parietalbone" The s4ull' 6r" Solis e=plains' is a bo=-li4e structure" The oent you apply pressure on the portion' a distortion'tension or soe other echanical defect is caused" This radiation of forces produces what is 4nown as the Fspider weblinear fractureG which goes to different parts of the body" The so-called fracturing of the petrous portion of the left teporalbone is one of the conse&uences of the 4inetic force forcefully applied to the astoid region"



The fact that there was found a fracture of the petrous bone is not necessarily indicative of the theory that the ain bulletpassed through the petrous bone"

6oubt was e=pressed by 6r" 0edro Solis as to whether the etal fragents alleged by 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH to have beenfound by hi inside the s4ull or at the wound of e=it were really parts of the ain bullet which 4illed the Senator" When 6r"0edro Solis e=ained these fragents' he found that two *> of the fragents were larger in siHe' and were of such

shapes' that they could not have gone out of the wound of e=it considering the siHe and shape of the e=it wound"

:inding of a downward tra2ectory of the fatal bullet fatal to the credibility of defense witnesses"

The finding that the fatal bullet which 4illed Sen" Benigno %&uino' (r" was directed downwards sustains the allegation ofprosecution eyewitnesses to the effect that Sen" Benigno %&uino' (r" was shot by a ilitary soldier at the bridge stairs whilehe was being brought down fro the plane" Rebecca ui2ano saw that the senator was shot by the ilitary an who wasdirectly behind the Senator while the Senator and he were descending the stairs" Rebecca ui2ano1s testiony in thisregard is echoed by (essie Barcelona' Raon Balang' Olivia %ntiano' and Mario Laher' whose testionies this Court findsli4ewise as credible"

The downward tra2ectory of the bullet having been established' it stands to reason that the gun used in shooting theSenator was fired fro an elevation higher than that of the wound of entrance at the bac4 of the head of the Senator" Thisis consistent with the testiony of prosecution witnesses to the effect that the actual 4iller of the Senator shot as he stood

at the upper step of the stairs' the second or third behind Senator %&uino' while Senator %&uino and the ilitary soldiersbringing hi were at the bridge stairs" This is li4ewise consistent with the stateent of Sandra (ean Burton that theshooting of Senator %&uino occurred while the Senator was still on the bridge stairs' a conclusion derived fro the fact thatthe fatal shot was fired ten #$> seconds after Senator %&uino crossed the service door and was led down the bridge stairs"

5t was the e=pert finding of 6r" Matsui SuHu4i that' as was gauged fro the sounds of the footsteps of Senator %&uino' asthe Senator went down the bridge stairs' the shooting of the Senator occurred while the Senator had stepped on the ##thstep fro the top"

%t the ocular inspection conducted by this Court' with the prosecution and the defense in attendance' it should be notedthat the following facts were established as regards the bridge stairs;

FObservations;

The length of one bloc4 covering the tarac #+1@G?

The width of one bloc4 covering the tarac #$1?

The distance fro the base of the staircase leading to the eergency tube to the !inoy ar4er at the tarac #*1@G?

There are *$ steps in the staircase including the landing?

The distance fro the first rung of the stairway up to the *$th rung which is the landing of stairs *$1,G?

6istance fro the first rung of the stairway up to the *$th rung until the edge of the e=it door *1##G?

6istance fro the 9th rung up to the e=it door *#1?

6istance fro the 7th rung up to the e=it door #+1##G?

Length of one rung including railpost 19G?

Space between two rungs of stairway +G?

Width of each rung ##-#*G?

Length of each rung end to end> *1+G;

8eight of railpost fro edge of rung to railing *17G"

underlining supplied>.*$/

The Sandiganbayan again e=haustively analyHed and discussed the forensic evidence in its resolution dated !oveber #7'#++$ denying the otion for reconsideration filed by the convicted accused" The court held;The %utopsy Report !o" !-,-**@' <=hibit F!!!!-*-t-*G indicated a downward tra2ectory of the fatal bullet when it statedthat the fatal bullet was Fforward' downward' and edially " " "G

===

55

The wound of entrance having been at a higher elevation than the wound of e=it' there can be no other conclusion but thatthe tra2ectory was downward" The fatal bullet' whether it be a Sith and Wesson Caliber "7D agnu revolver or a "97caliber' ust have traveled at a fast rate of speed and it stands to reason that it too4 a straight path fro the wound ofentrance to the wound of e=it" % hole indicating this straight path was proven to have e=isted" 5f' as contended on cross-



e=aination by 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH' that the bullet was pro2ected upwards' it ought to have e=ited at the roof of thehead" The theory that the fatal bullet was deflected by a ere petrous bone is inconceivable"

555

Since the wound of entrance appeared ovaloid and there is what is 4nown as a contusion collar which was widest at thesuperior portion' indicating an acute angle of approach' a downward tra2ectory of the fatal bullet is conclusively indicated"

This phenoenon indicates that the uHHle of the fatal gun was at a level higher than that of the point of entry of the fatalbullet"

5A

There was no hole fro the petrous bone to the andible where the fatal bullet had e=ited and' thus' there is no support tothe theory of 6r" Bienvenido MuIoH that the fatal bullet had hit the petrous bone on an upward tra2ectory and had beendeflected by the petrous bone towards the andible" 6r" (uanito Billote1s testiony in this regard had aplified the atterwith clarity"

===

These physical facts' notwithstanding the arguents and protestations of counsel for the defense as now and heretoforeavowed' copel the Court to aintain the holding; #> that the tra2ectory of the fatal bullet which hit and 4illed SenatorBenigno %&uino' (r" was Fforward' downward and ediallyG? *> that the Senator was shot by a person who stood at ahigher elevation than he? and > that the Senator was shot and 4illed by C5C Rogelio Moreno on the bridge stairs and noton the tarac' in conspiracy with the rest of the accused convicted herein".*#/

This Court affired said findings of the Sandiganbayan when it denied the petition for review in its resolution of (uly *7'#++#" The Court ruled;The Court has carefully considered and deliberated upon all the contentions of the petitioners but finds no basis for theallegation that the respondent Sandiganbayan has gravely erred in resolving the factual issues"

The attept to place a constitutional diension in the petition is a labor in vain" Basically' only &uestions of fact areraised" !ot only is it a=ioatic that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are final unless they fall within specificallyrecogniHed e=ceptions to the rule but fro the petition and its anne=es alone' it is readily apparent that the respondentCourt correctly resolved the factual issues"

===

The tra2ectory of the fatal bullet' whether or not the victi was descending the stairway or was on the tarac when shot'the circustances showing conspiracy' the participants in the conspiracy' the individual roles of the accused and theirrespective parts in the conspiracy' the absence of evidence against thirteen accused and their co-accused Col" Aicente B"Tigas' (r"' the lac4 of credibility of the witnesses against forer Minister (ose 6" %spiras' 6irector (esus N" Singson' Col"%rturo %" Custodio' 8erilo )osuico' Ma2or )eneral 0rospero Olivas' and the shooting of Rolando )alan are all factualatters w.h/ich the respondent court discussed with fairness and at length" The petitioners1 insistence that a fewwitnesses in their favor should be believed while that of soe witnesses against the should be discredited goes into the&uestion of credibility of witnesses' a atter which under the records of this petition is best left to the 2udgent of theSandiganbayan".**/

Th r=4r 4> h >4r3c <r4= 33a// rra3 h h4r =r31 h 1>3 1r< h ra/ 4>h 14/ ;r1r ca3. Clearly' the report is not newly discovered' but rather recently sought' which is not allowed by

the Rules".*/

5f at all' it only serves to discredit the version of the prosecution which had already been weighed andassessed' and thereafter upheld by the Sandiganbayan"

The sae is true with the stateent of the alleged eyewitness' S0O9 Cantibuhan" 8is narration erely corroborates thetestionies of other defense witnesses during the trial that they saw Senator %&uino already wal4ing on the airport taractoward the %AS<COM van when a an in blue-gray unifor darted fro behind and fired at the bac4 of the Senator1s head".*9/ The Sandiganbayan' however' did not give weight to their account as it found the testionies of prosecutioneyewitnesses Rebecca ui2ano and (essie Barcelona ore credible" ui2ano and Barcelona testified that they saw thesoldier behind Senator %&uino on the stairway ai and fire a gun on the latter1s nape" %s earlier &uoted' theSandiganbayan found their testionies to be ore consistent with the physical evidence" S0O9 Cantibuhan1s testionywill not in any way alter the court1s decision in view of the eyewitness account of ui2ano and Barcelona' ta4en togetherwith the physical evidence presented during the trial" Certainly' a ra/ // 4/ a//41 > h 1c3 4> 3ch <h ha 4/1 =r4a/ cha< h ?1<; > a1;1..*7/ A/34, ra/ // 4 <ra1> h 1c 3 ;r/ c;/a, c4rr44ra 4r ;=ach<.

%s additional support to their otion for new trial' petitioners also clai that they were denied due process because theywere deprived of ade&uate legal assistance by counsel" We are not persuaded" The records will bear out that petitionerswere ably represented by %tty" Rodolfo 3" (ieneH during the trial and when the case was elevated to this Court" %ne=perienced lawyer in criinal cases' %tty" (ieneH vigorously defended the petitioners1 cause throughout the entireproceedings" The records show that the defense presented a substantial nuber of witnesses and e=hibits during the trial"%fter the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision' %tty" (ieneH filed a petition for review with this Court' invo4ing allconceivable grounds to ac&uit the petitioners" When the Court denied the petition for review' he again filed a otion forreconsideration e=hausting his deep reservoir of legal talent" We therefore find petitioners1 clai to be unblushinglyunsubstantiated" We note that they did not allege any specific facts in their present otion to show that %tty" (ieneH hadbeen reiss in his duties as counsel" 0etitioners are therefore bound by the acts and decisions of their counsel as regardsthe conduct of the case" The general rule is that the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his caseand cannot be heard to coplain that the result of the litigation ight have been different had his counsel proceededdifferently".*@/ We held in #4=/ 3. U;a/+.*D/



5n criinal as well as civil cases' it has fre&uently been held that the fact that blunders and ista4es ay have been adein the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court' as a result of the ignorance' ine=perience' or incopetence of counsel'does not furnish a ground for a new trial"

5f such grounds were to be aditted as reasons for reopening cases' there would never be an end to a suit so long as newcounsel could be eployed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent' or e=perienced'or learned"

So it has been held that ista4es of attorneys as to the copetency of a witness' the sufficiency' relevancy' ateriality' oriateriality of a certain evidence' the proper defense' or the burden of proof are not proper grounds for a new trial? andin general the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case' and can not be heard to coplain thatthe result of the litigation ight have been different had counsel proceeded differently" citations omitted >:inally' we are not oved by petitioners1 assertion that the forensic evidence ay have been anipulated andisinterpreted during the trial of the case" %gain' petitioners did not allege concrete facts to support their crass clai"8ence' we find the sae to be unfounded and purely speculative"

IN (IEC CHEREO%, the otion is !ENIE!.

SO OR!ERE!.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-antiago, andoval-!utierrez, Carpio, "ustria-#artinez, Corona, Calle$o,

r., "zcuna, %inga, C&ico-Nazario, and!arcia, JJ., concur"

Carpio-#orales, J., on leave"

rule121_custodiovsandiganbayan.docx

Documents