G.R. No. L-38581 – 70 SCRA 257 – Legal Ethics – Duties of the Solicitor General
In February 1968, Lorenzo Jose was caught possessing several firearms and explosives. He was prosecuted for illegally possessing said firearms and explosives. During trial, he said that he is authorized to carry the explosives but he cannot present (at that time) his permit hence he made a reservation to present his evidence at a later time. The trial court acquitted him in the other cases but convicted him for illegal possession of hand grenade.
He filed a notice of appeal but at the same time asked the trial court for a new trial so that he may be able to present his new evidence. The trial court denied the request for new trial because Jose was able to perfect his appeal.
The Court of Appeals likewise denied Jose’s request for a new trial as it ruled that there is no reversible error committed by the trial court. Jose filed a motion for reconsideration and for new trial. The Solicitor General opposed the MFR/New Trial as it stated that the evidence sought to be presented by Jose does not fall under “newly discovered evidence”; that his permit to possess a hand grenade was supposed to be known to Jose at the time of the trial and not discovered thereafter.
Undeterred, Jose submitted a reply where he finally indicated he is an undercover agent for the Philippine Constabulary; that being such, he was authorized to carry firearms and explosives; that the reason why he did not disclose the same immediately was because of his fear for reprisals considering that he resides in “Huklandia”; he enclosed a letter from then Major General Fidel Ramos confirming this fact.
With the foregoing, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation where he recommended the granting of the new trial – even if the same violates the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Solicitor General is correct.
HELD: Yes. This is a situation where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice – to render justice where justice is due to secure to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. The Solicitor General embodies the principle that a prosecuting officer, as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation and interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done, has the solemn responsibility to assure the public that while guilt shall not escape, innocence shall not suffer. The recommendation by the Solicitor General in this case acknowledges that the interests of justice will best be served by remanding this case to the court of origin for a new trial.
