Scribd
Upload
134 views2 pages

021 - Alegre v. Reyes (Villarey)

The document summarizes a case where Alegre, charged with misappropriation of public funds, filed a motion to reopen his trial after the prosecution presented evidence but before judgment. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court found that reopening was proper, as Alegre made a mistake in his defense and should have the opportunity to present additional evidence before judgment. While motions for new trial come after judgment, motions to reopen can be granted at the court's discretion before judgment if it serves the interests of justice. In this case, Alegre showed no undue delay and reopening would not prejudice the prosecution.

Uploaded by

Third Villarey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views2 pages

021 - Alegre v. Reyes (Villarey)

The document summarizes a case where Alegre, charged with misappropriation of public funds, filed a motion to reopen his trial after the prosecution presented evidence but before judgment. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court found that reopening was proper, as Alegre made a mistake in his defense and should have the opportunity to present additional evidence before judgment. While motions for new trial come after judgment, motions to reopen can be granted at the court's discretion before judgment if it serves the interests of justice. In this case, Alegre showed no undue delay and reopening would not prejudice the prosecution.

Uploaded by

Third Villarey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

UP Law BGC Eve 2024 Alegre v.

Reyes
Criminal Procedure Remedies  Reopening v. 1988 Narvasa
motion for new trial
SUMMARY DOCTRINE
Alegre was charged with malversation of public funds as Motion for new trial is properly only after promulgation of
president of PJAC. After 2.5 years of trial, with prosecution judgement. It is only granted upon specific grounds under ROC.
presenting 29 witnesses and more than 60 exhibits while Alegre Motion to reopen trial is proper before judgement. It is based
presenting only his own testimony and a few documents, before solely in the interest of justice and rests entirely in the sound
judgement, Alegre filed a motion to reopen trial. This was discretion of the trial court.
denied by the RTC judge. Hence, this petition.

FACTS

 Petitioner Alegre is the president and general manager of PJAC (Philippine Jai-Alai & Amusement Corp.) and a public officer.
He approves disbursements of petty cash vouchers. In this case, he approved petty cash vouchers in payment of claims for lost
and torn winning tickets and reimbursed erroneous payments made by the cashiers chargeable against public funds. He allowed
other persons to take, misappropriate and convers said funds to their own personal use.
 Judge Reyes is the judge in the trial court.
 CFI Manila
o Alegre was indicted for felony of malversation of public funds (Art. 217, RPC)
o Alegre entered a plea of not guilty.
o Trial lasted for 2.5 years when prosecution rested their case.
 Prosecution presented 29 witnesses, 33 affidavits among others.
 Alegre objected these evidence as hearsay since the affiants had not been called to witness stand for cross-
examination.
 Alegre’s evidence only consisted of his sole testimony and few exhibits, which were submitted during only 2 trial
settings.
 Memoranda were thereafter submitted by the parties.
o Alegre now files a Motion to Reopen Trial for Presentation of Additional Evidence to prove:
 That the funds in question are not public funds and are not impressed with a public character
 That he is not a public officer
 He admitted his mistake and oversight in failing to lay these additional proofs prior to resting his case,
realization of the gravity of error and the gaping omissions in his evidence having dawned on him in the course
of drawing up his memorandum-in-chief and reply memorandum.
o Prosecution opposed this motion:
 The additional evidence would not affect the essential question of Alegre’s guilt or innocence.
 Alegre had been accorded adequate time and opportunity to give proof but he failed to do so.
o CFI: denied the motion of Alegre:
 Alegre had all the opportunity to present his evidence to prove his innocence.
 Court of Appeals
o Alegre applied for a writ of certiorari:
 CFI committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declining the reopening.
o Court of Appeals issued TRO preventing CFI to proceed with the promulgation of judgement.
 CA required OSG to comment on People’s behalf.
 Without waiting for OSG, CA dismissed the petition.

RATIO

W/N it was proper for the RTC judge to deny Alegre’s motion to reopen trial?
No.

 Alegre filed instant petition for review on certiorari.


 SC issued TRO inhibiting Judge Reyes from further proceeding with the case.
 Difference between Motion to reopen trial and Motion for new trial.
o Motion to reopen
 May only be presented only after either or both parties have formally offered and closed their evidence but
before judgement.
 It is not specifically mentioned and prescribed as remedy by ROC. There is no specific provision in ROC
governing motions to reopen. It is although recognized as a procedural recourse or device.
 This is controlled by no other rule than that of paramount interests of justice, resting entirely in the
sound discretion of a trial court.
 The approval or denial of the court in the exercise of that discretion will not be reviewed on appeal
unless a clear abuse is shown.
o Motion for new trial
 Proper only after rendition or promulgation of judgement.
 In civil or criminal actions, it may be applied for and granted only upon specific, well-defined grounds. (Rule 37,
Sec. 1 and Rule 121, Sec. 2)
 In this case, it is reviewed for an abuse was shown:
o It took prosecution 2.5 years to present all the evidence they gathered: 29 witnesses and more than 60 exhibits.
o Alegre, within a span of 5 days and 2 hearing dates, only presented his sole testimony and a few documents.
o There was no undue delay in Alegre’s presentation of his motion to reopen.
o There is an absence of showing any substantial prejudice to the State if Alegre presents his additional evidence.
o Alegre admitted he had an error and underestimated the State’s evidence and overrated his own meager proofs.
o All these circumstances should have persuaded the judge to give Alegre a few hearing dates to present evidence.
o It is unreasonable for the trial court to deny this by stating the reason that:
 Alegre had been given all the opportunity to present
  Alegre does not deny this, but he pleads that serious error on his part prevented him from fully
availing that opportunity
 The record has been extensively saturated with evidence on the points raised in the motion such that further
evidence on said points would only be unnecessarily cumulative and a superfluity
  The “saturating evidence” did not come from Alegre but from the Prosecution
  His additional evidence would not be cumulative thereto but in refutation thereof, so it cannot
be characterized as a superfluity

FALLO

Judge Reyes is ordered to reopen the trial to receive evidence.

You might also like