Briones v. People
G.R. No. 156009, June 5, 2009


Facts:

Security Guards Molina and Gual were manning the northwest gate of BF Homes. They noticed a homeowner being mauled by four individuals, two of whom were later identified as Briones and his brother Vicente Briones, who were also residents of BF Homes. Molina and Gual approached the group to stop the mauling. It was at this point that Molina lost his firearm. Subsequently, Briones was charged with the crime of robbery. Gual positively identified Briones as the person who grabbed Molina's firearm and, thereafter, ran away. Gual also testified that this firearm was never recovered.

RTC found Briones guilty of the crime of simple theft after giving weight to prosecutions positive testimony as against the denial and alibi of Briones. The CA found Briones guilty of robbery. Briones thereafter filed a Motion for New Trial. Briones confessed his physical presence and participation on the alleged robbery of the firearm, but claimed that he was merely protecting his brother, Vicente, when he took the firearm.


Issue:

Whether a new trial is justified under the circumstances.


Held:

For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the following conditions must obtain: 

(a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial; 

(b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; 

(c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and 

(d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and produce a different result if admitted.


In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the trial, the other conditions were not established.


Briones failed to show that he had exerted reasonable diligence to locate the firearm; his allegation in his Omnibus Motion that he told his brothers and sisters to search for the firearm, which yielded negative results, is purely self-serving. He also now admits having taken the firearm and having immediately disposed of it at a nearby house, adjacent to the place of the incident. Hence, even before the case went to court, he already knew the location of the subject firearm, but did not do anything; he did not even declare this knowledge at the trial below.


In any case, we fail to see how the recovery of the firearm can be considered material evidence that will affect the outcome of the case; the recovery of the subject firearm does not negate the commission of the crime charged.


Briones’ change of defense from denial and alibi to self-defense or in defense of a relative will not change the outcome for Briones considering that he failed to show unlawful aggression on the part of S/G Molina and/or S/G Gual – the essential element of these justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Code. The records show that prior to the taking of the firearm, S/G Molina and S/G Gual approached Briones and his companions to stop the fight between Briones’ group and another person. To be sure, there was nothing unlawful in preventing a fight from further escalating and in using reasonable and necessary means to stop it. This conclusion is strengthened by evidence showing that at the time of the incident, Briones was drunk and was with three companions; they all participated in the mauling.