1.) Senit Vs People

Senit vs People
GR No. 192914
January 11, 2016
(Grounds)
Facts:
1.) In the morning of September 2, 2000, private complainant Mohinder Toor, Sr. was driving north
along Aglayan from the direction of Valencia on board his Toyota pick-up with his wife Rosalinda Toor,
their three-year-old son Mohinder Toor, Jr., and househelper Mezelle Jane Silayan. He turned left and
was coming to the center of Aglayan when a speeding Super 5 bus driven by petitioner and coming from
Malaybalay headed south towards Valencia, suddenly overtook a big truck from the right side. Petitioner
tried to avoid the accident by swerving to the right towards the shoulder of the road and applying the
brakes, but he was moving too fast and could not avoid a collision with the pick-up. The bus crashed into
the right side of private complainant's pick-up at a right angle
2.) All passengers of the pick-up were injured and immediately brought to Bethel Baptist Hospital,
Sumpong, Malaybalay City. However, because of lack of medical facilities, they were transferred to the
Bukidnon Doctor's Hospital in Valencia City, Bukidnon. Rosalinda Toor sustained an open fracture of the
humerus of the right arm and displaced, closed fracture of the proximal and distal femur of the right
lower extremity which required two surgical operations. She was paralyzed as a result of the accident
and was unable to return to her job as the Regional Manager of COSPACHEM Product Laboratories.
Mohinder Toor, Sr. spent about P580,000.00 for her treatment and P3,000.00 for Mezelle Jean Silayan,
who suffered frontal area swelling as a result of the accident. Mohinder Toor, Sr. suffered a complete
fracture of the scapular bone of his right shoulder while his son Mohinder Toor, Jr. sustained abdominal
injury and a wound on the area of his right eye which required suturing. The damage sustained by the
pick-up reached P106,155.00.
3.) Thus, on May 30, 2001, Carlo B. Mejia, City Prosecutor of Malaybalay City, charged petitioner
with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property in an
Amended Information which CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com was <led with Branch
10 of the [RTC] in Malaybalay City.
4.) Upon being arraigned on June 21, 2001, the petitioner, with the assistance of his counsel,
pleaded not guilty to the Information in this case. 7 Trial ensued. However, after the initial presentation
of evidence for the petitioner, he resigned from his employment and transferred residence. His
whereabouts allegedly became unknown so he was not presented as a witness by his new counsel. 8 On
April 26, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision in absentia convicting the petitioner of the crime charged.
5.) The RTC issued a Promulgation 10 dated August 4, 2006, which included an order for the arrest
of the petitioner. The petitioner then <led a motion for new trial via registered mail on the ground that
errors of law or irregularities have been committed during trial that are allegedly prejudicial to his
substantial rights. He claimed that he was not able to present evidence during trial because he was not
noti<ed of the schedule. Likewise, he mistakenly believed that the case against him has been dismissed.
The CA affirmed the decision.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC AND THE CA ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR TO RE-
OPEN THE SAME IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF
Ruling:
No, the RTC and CA did not err in denying the motion for new trial. First, no substantial right of the
accused was prejudice during trial. Trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the
1987 Constitution which provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Second, there is no legal basis for the grant of the motion for new trial. A motion for new trial based on
newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met:(a) that the evidence
was discovered after trial;(b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise ofreasonable diligence;(c) that it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would
probably change the judgment. It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in
seeking to locate the evidence before ordering trial but nonetheless failed to secure it. However, a new
trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available during trial but was not presented due
to its negligence.
The Court finds no reason to waive the procedural rules in order to grant the motion for new trial of the
petitioner. Senit was not in any way deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process
as he had previous notice of the criminal case filed against him. SC noted that the petitioner had been
arraigned already, thus the court had acquired jurisdiction over him. In fact, there was already initial
presentation of evidence for the defense when his whereabouts became unknown. He was given the
opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The petitioner he was duly accorded all the
opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense, but he forfeited this
right, through his own negligence, by not appearing in court at the scheduled hearings. He wasted his
opportunity to be heard by not being diligent enough to ask about the status of the criminal case against
him and inform his counsel of his whereabouts.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 20, 2009 and the
Resolution dated June 17,2010 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 00390-MIN are AFFIRMED.

1.) Senit Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.) Senit Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.) Senit Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senit vs People

January 11, 2016

You might also like