G.R. No.

L-52728 January 17, 1990

AVELINO C. AGULTO, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, Presiding Judge of Branch II of the
Court of First Instance of Davao; and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

On April 23, 1970, an information was filed against one Avelino Agulto. It alleged that on or about
December 30, 1968, while having a subsisting marriage with Maria Pilar Gaspar, contracted a second marriage
with one Andrea Suico.

On November 12, 1975, after the trial was finished and the parties had rested, but before judgment
was promulgated, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The
evidence in question was a marriage contract between Andrea Suico and one Romeo Vergeire on July 19,
1960. However, the court denied the motion on the ground that it was filed too late, considering that he should
have discovered the evidence sooner as he knew of the marriage since 1972.

He filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, but this was denied. He then raised it to the Supreme
Court.

Issues:

Whether or not the CA and trial court gravely abused their discretion when they refused to reopen the
trial.

Held:

Before tackling the case, the SC differentiated a Motion for a New Trial and a Motion to Reopen Trial. A
Motion for New Trial may be filed after judgment but within the period for perfecting an appeal (Sec. 1, Rule 37,
Rules of Court).
A Motion to Reopen Trial may be presented only after either or both parties have formally offered and
closed their evidence, but before judgment. There is no specific provision in the Rules of Court for motions to
reopen trial. It is albeit a recognized procedural recourse or devise, deriving validity and acceptance from long
established usage. It is controlled by no other rule than the paramount interests of justice, resting
entirely in the sound judicial discretion of the Trial Court. The reopening of a case for the reception of
further evidence before judgment is not the granting of a new trial.
Petitioner’s newly discovered evidence of a previous marriage of Andrea Suico was not supported by
evidence that said marriage was existing when he married Suico. Additionally, the “newly-discovered evidence”
was a Xerox copied document, and is not properly certified and authenticated, and on its face it appears that
the marriage was celebrated w/out a marriage license. The CA was therefore correct in denying the motion.
Petitioner’s motion to reopen trial was a mere dilatory pleading, and has succeeded in delaying the case for 14
years.