habeas corpus de villa.doc

7/27/2019 habeas corpus de villa.doc

1/6

G.R. No. 158802 November 17, 2004

IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS COR!S FOR RE"NA#$O $E %I##A &'e()*+e' )( (e Ne- B**b*' r*/o+/,

+(*+) C*(3

!NE $E %I##A,petitioner-relator,

vs.THE $IRECTOR, NEW BI#IBI$ RISONS,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

"NARES6SANTIAGO, .:

This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule !" of the Rules of Court. #etitioner Re$naldo de %illa,

&oined b$ his son, petitioner-relator 'une de %illa, see(s a two-fold relief) *irst, that respondent Director of #risons &ustif$ the

basis for the i+prison+ent of petitioner Re$naldo de %illa and second, that petitioner be ranted a new trial.These reliefs are

souht on the basis of purportedl$ eculpator$ evidence, athered after perfor+in deo$ribonucleic acid /DN01 testin on

sa+ples alleedl$ collected fro+ the petitioner and a child born to the victi+ of the rape.

2$ final &ud+ent dated *ebruar$ , "!!, in #eople of the #hilippines v. Re$naldo de %illa,"we found petitioner uilt$ of the

rape of 0ileen 3endo4a, his niece b$ affinit$ sentenced hi+ to suffer the penalt$ of reclusi5n perpetua and ordered hi+ to

pa$ the offended part$ civil inde+nit$, +oral da+aes, costs of the suit, and support for 6eahl$n Corales 3endo4a, the

putative child born of the rape. #etitioner is currentl$ servin his sentence at the New 2ilibid #rison, 3untinlupa Cit$.

0s su++ari4ed in our Decision dated *ebruar$ , "!!, 0ileen 3endo4a chared petitioner Re$naldo de %illa with rape in an

infor+ation dated 'anuar$ 7, 778, filed with the Reional Trial Court of #asi Cit$. 9hen arrained on 'anuar$ ":, 778,petitioner entered a plea of ;not uilt$.;s rented roo+ in Saad, #asi, 3etro 3anila, to find petitioner on top of her. 0ileen

was then aed " $ears and ten +onths. She was unable to shout for help because petitioner covered her +outh with a pillowand threatened to (ill her. 0ileen could not do an$thin but cr$. #etitioner succeeded in insertin his penis inside her vaina.

0fter +a(in thrustin +otions with his bod$, petitioner e&aculated. This encounter alleedl$ resulted in 0ileen>s prenanc$,which was noticed b$ her +other, 6eonila 3endo4a, so+eti+e in Nove+ber 77=. 9hen confronted b$ her +other, 0ileen

revealed that petitioner raped her. 0ileen>s parents then brouht her to the #asi #olice Station, where the$ loded a cri+inalco+plaint aainst petitioner.=

Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, who ea+ined 0ileen, confir+ed that she was eiht +onths prenant and found in her h$+en healed

lacerations at the 8)!! and ?)!! positions. On Dece+ber 7, 77=, 0ileen ave birth to a bab$ irl who+ she na+ed 6eahl$n

3endo4a.8

In his defense, petitioner alleed that, at the ti+e of the alleed rape, he was alread$ :@ $ears old. Old ae and sic(ness had

rendered hi+ incapable of havin an erection. Ae further averred that 0ileen>s fa+il$ had been holdin a rude aainst hi+,

which accounted for the cri+inal chares. *inall$, he interposed the defense of alibi, clai+in that at the ti+e of the incident,

he was in his ho+etown of San 6uis, 2atanas.:

The trial court found petitioner uilt$ be$ond reasonable doubt of the cri+e of Bualified rape, and sentenced hi+ to death, to

inde+nif$ the victi+ in the a+ount of #8!,!!!.!!, to pa$ the costs of the suit and to support the child, 6eahl$n 3endo4a.@

On auto+atic review,?we found that the date of birth of 0ileen>s child was +edicall$ consistent with the ti+e of the rape.

Since it was never alleed that 0ileen ave birth to a full-ter+ nine-+onth old bab$, we ave credence to the prosecution>s

contention that she pre+aturel$ ave birth to an eiht-+onth old bab$ b$ nor+al deliver$.7Thus, we affir+ed petitioner>s

conviction for rape, in a Decision the dispositive portion of which reads)

9AERE*ORE, the &ud+ent of the Reional Trial Court, findin accused-appellant uilt$ be$ond reasonable doubt

of the cri+e of rape, is 0**IR3ED with the 3ODI*IC0TIONS that he is sentenced to suffer the penalt$ of reclusi5nperpetua and ordered to pa$ the offended part$ #8!,!!!.!! as civil inde+nit$ #8!,!!!.!! as +oral da+aes costs of

the suit and to provide support for the child 6eahl$n Corales 3endo4a.

SO ORDERED.!

Three $ears after the pro+ulation of our Decision, we are once +ore faced with the Buestion of Re$naldo de %illa>s uilt or

innocence.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt1


2/6

#etitioner-relator in this case, 'une de %illa, is the son of Re$naldo. Ae allees that durin the trial of the case, he was unaware

that there was a scientific test that could deter+ine once and for all if Re$naldo was the father of the victi+>s child, 6eahl$n.

#etitioner-relator was onl$ infor+ed durin the pendenc$ of the auto+atic review of petitioner>s case that DN0 testin could

resolve the issue of paternit$.This infor+ation was apparentl$ furnished b$ the *ree 6eal 0ssistance roup /*601 0nti-

Death #enalt$ Tas( *orce, which too( over as counsel for petitioner.

Thus, petitioner>s brief in #eople v. de %illa souht the conduct of a blood t$pe test and DN0 test in order to deter+ine the

paternit$ of the child alleedl$ conceived as a result of the rape."This relief was i+plicitl$ denied in our Decision of *ebruar$

", "!!.

On 3arch :, "!!, Re$naldo de %illa filed a 3otion for #artial Reconsideration of the Decision, wherein he once +ore

pra$ed that DN0 tests be conducted.


3/6

Thus, notwithstandin its historic function as the reat writ of libert$, the writ of habeas corpus has ver$ li+ited availabilit$ as

a post-conviction re+ed$. In the recent case of *eria v. Court of 0ppeals,"8we ruled that review of a &ud+ent of conviction is

allowed in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus onl$ in ver$ specific instances, such as when, as a

conseBuence of a &udicial proceedin, /a1 there has been a deprivation of a constitutional riht resultin in the restraint of a

person /b1 the court had no &urisdiction to i+pose the sentence or /c1 an ecessive penalt$ has been i+posed, as such sentence

is void as to such ecess.":

In this instance, petitioner invo(es the writ of habeas corpus to assail a final &ud+ent of conviction, without, however,

providin a leal round on which to anchor his petition. In fine, petitioner allees neither the deprivation of a constitutionalriht, the absence of &urisdiction of the court i+posin the sentence, or that an ecessive penalt$ has been i+posed upon hi+.

In fine, petitioner invo(es the re+ed$ of habeas corpus in order to see( the review of findins of fact lon passed upon with

finalit$. This relief is far outside the scope of habeas corpus proceedins. In the earl$ case of 0briol v. Ao+eres,"@for ea+ple,

this Court stated the eneral rule that the writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error, and should not be thus used. The writ of

habeas corpus, whereas per+ittin a collateral challene of the &urisdiction of the court or tribunal issuin the process or&ud+ent b$ which an individual is deprived of his libert$, cannot be distorted b$ etendin the inBuir$ to +ere errors of trial

courts actin sBuarel$ within their &urisdiction."?The reason for this is eplained ver$ si+pl$ in the case of %elasco v. Court of

0ppeals)"7a habeas corpus petition reaches the bod$, but not the record of the case.

etant, and cannot be revised, +odified, altered or a+ended b$ the si+ple epedient of resort to habeas corpus proceedins.

Clearl$, +ere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of deprivin the trial court of its &urisdiction over the case and

the person of the defendant, are not correctible in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus if at all, these errors+ust be corrected on certiorari or on appeal, in the for+ and +anner prescribed b$ law.s appreciation of the evidence in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, as this is not the

function of said writ.


4/6

fair and &ust result.=8The proper +easure of attorne$ perfor+ance is ;reasonable; under the prevailin professional nor+s, and

the defendant +ust show that the representation received fell below the ob&ective standard of reasonableness.=:*or the petition

to succeed, the stron presu+ption that the counsel>s conduct falls within the wide rane or reasonable professional assistance

+ust be overco+e.=@

In the case at bar, it appears that in the +iddle of the appeal, the petitioner>s counsel of record, a certain 0tt$. 0lfonso .Salvador, suddenl$ and ineplicabl$ withdrew his appearance as counsel, ivin the sole eplanation that he was ;leavin for

the nited States for an indefinite period of ti+e b$ virtue of a petition filed in his favor.;=?In the face of this abandon+ent,

petitioner +ade an i+passioned plea that his law$er be prevented fro+ this withdrawal in a handwritten ;rent 3otion forReconsideration and Opposition of Counsel>s 9ithdrawal of 0ppearance with 6eave of Court; received b$ this Court on

Septe+ber =, 777.=7#etitioner alleed that his counsel>s withdrawal is an ;unti+el$ and heartbrea(in event;, considerin

that he had placed ;all GhisH trust and confidence on Ghis counsel>sH unBuestionable interit$ and dinit$.;8!

9hile we are s$+pathetic to petitioner>s pliht, we do not, however, find that there was such nelience co++itted b$ his

earlier counsel so as to a+ount to a denial of a constitutional riht. There is li(ewise no showin that the proceedins weretainted with an$ other &urisdictional defect.

In fine, we find that petitioner invo(es the re+ed$ of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to see( a re-ea+ination of the

records of #eople v. de %illa, without assertin an$ leal rounds therefor. *or all intents and purposes, petitioner see(s a

reevaluation of the evidentiar$ basis for his conviction. 9e are bein as(ed to reea+ine the weiht and sufficienc$ of the

evidence in this case, not on its own, but in liht of the new DN0 evidence that the petitioner see(s to present to this Court.

This relief is outside the scope of a habeas corpus petition. The petition for habeas corpus +ust, therefore, fail.

Coupled with the pra$er for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner see(s a new trial to re-litiate the issue of the

paternit$ of the child 6eahl$n 3endo4a.

It +ust be stressed that the issue of 6eahl$n 3endo4a>s paternit$ is not central to the issue of petitioner>s uilt or innocence.

The rape of the victi+ 0ileen 3endo4a is an entirel$ different Buestion, separate and distinct fro+ the Buestion of the father of

her child. Recentl$, in the case of #eople v. 0lberio,8we ruled that the fact or not of the victi+>s prenanc$ and resultant

childbirth are irrelevant in deter+inin whether or not she was raped. #renanc$ is not an essential ele+ent of the cri+e ofrape. 9hether the child which the victi+ bore was fathered b$ the purported rapist, or b$ so+e un(nown individual, is of no

+o+ent in deter+inin an individual>s uilt.

In the instant case, however, we note that the rant of child support to 6eahl$n 3endo4a indicates that our Decision was based,

at least in s+all +easure, on the victi+>s clai+ that the petitioner fathered her child. This clai+ was iven credence b$ the trial

court, and, as a findin of fact, was affir+ed b$ this Court on auto+atic review.

The fact of the child>s paternit$ is now in issue, centrall$ relevant to the civil award of child support. It is onl$ tanentiall$related to the issue of petitioner>s uilt. Aowever, if it can be conclusivel$ deter+ined that the petitioner did not sire 6eahl$n

3endo4a, this +a$ cast the shadow of reasonable doubt, and allow the acBuittal of the petitioner on this basis.

2e that as it +a$, it appears that the petitioner once +ore relies upon erroneous leal rounds in resortin to the re+ed$ of a

+otion for new trial. 0 +otion for new trial, under the Revised Rules of Cri+inal #rocedure, is available onl$ for a li+ited

period of ti+e, and for ver$ li+ited rounds. nder Section , Rule ", of the Revised Rules of Cri+inal #rocedure, a +otion

for new trial +a$ be filed at an$ ti+e before a &ud+ent of conviction beco+es final, that is, within fifteen /81 da$s fro+ its

pro+ulation or notice. pon finalit$ of the &ud+ent, therefore, a +otion for new trial is no loner an available re+ed$.

Section " of Rule " enu+erates the rounds for a new trial)

SEC. ". rounds for a new trial.The court shall rant a new trial on an$ of the followin rounds)

/a1 That errors of law or irreularities pre&udicial to the substantial rihts of the accused have been co++itted durin

the trial

/b1 That new and +aterial evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable dilience havediscovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and ad+itted would probabl$ chane the &ud+ent.

In the case at bar, petitioner anchors his plea on the basis of purportedl$ ;newl$-discovered evidence;, i.e., the DN0 test

subseBuentl$ conducted, alleedl$ ecludin petitioner fro+ the child purportedl$ fathered as a result of the rape.

The decision souht to be reviewed in this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has lon attained finalit$, and

entr$ of &ud+ent was +ade as far bac( as 'anuar$ :, "!!". 3oreover, upon an ea+ination of the evidence presented b$ the

petitioner, we do not find that the DN0 evidence falls within the statutor$ or &urisprudential definition of ;newl$- discoveredevidence;.

0 +otion for new trial based on newl$-discovered evidence +a$ be ranted onl$ if the followin reBuisites are +et) /a1 that the

evidence was discovered after trial /b1 that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with

the eercise of reasonable dilience /c1 that it is +aterial, not +erel$ cu+ulative, corroborative or i+peachin and /d1 that the

evidence is of such weiht that that, if ad+itted, it would probabl$ chane the &ud+ent.8"It is essential that the offerin part$

eercised reasonable dilience in see(in to locate the evidence before or durin trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.8


5/6

In this instance, althouh the DN0 evidence was undoubtedl$ discovered after the trial, we nonetheless find that it does not

+eet the criteria for ;newl$-discovered evidence; that would +erit a new trial. Such evidence disprovin paternit$ could have

been discovered and produced at trial with the eercise of reasonable dilience.

#etitioner-relator>s clai+ that he was ;unaware; of the eistence of DN0 testin until the trial was concluded carries no weiht

with this Court. 6ac( of (nowlede of the eistence of DN0 testin spea(s of nelience, either on the part of petitioner, or onthe part of petitioner>s counsel. In either instance, however, this nelience is bindin upon petitioner. It is a settled rule that a

part$ cannot bla+e his counsel for nelience when he hi+self was uilt$ of nelect.8=0 client is bound b$ the acts of his

counsel, includin the latter>s +ista(es and nelience.88

It is li(ewise settled that relief will not be ranted to a part$ who see(sto be relieved fro+ the effects of the &ud+ent when the loss of the re+ed$ at law was due to his own nelience, or to a

+ista(en +ode of procedure.8:

Even with all of the co+pellin and persuasive scientific evidence presented b$ petitioner and his counsel, we are not

convinced that Re$naldo de %illa is entitled to outriht acBuittal. 0s correctl$ pointed out b$ the Solicitor eneral, even if it is

conclusivel$ proven that Re$naldo de %illa is not the father of 6eahl$n 3endo4a, his conviction could, in theor$, still stand,with 0ileen 3endo4a>s testi+on$ and positive identification as its bases.8@The Solicitor eneral reiterates, and correctl$ so,

that the prenanc$ of the victi+ has never been an ele+ent of the cri+e of rape.8?Therefore, the DN0 evidence has failed to

conclusivel$ prove to this Court that Re$naldo de %illa should be dischared. 0lthouh petitioner clai+s that conviction was

based solel$ on a findin of paternit$ of the child 6eahl$n, this is not the case. Our conviction was based on the clear and

convincin testi+onial evidence of the victi+, which, iven credence b$ the trial court, was affir+ed on appeal.

9AERE*ORE, in view of the foreoin, the instant petition for habeas corpus and new trial is DIS3ISSED for lac( of +erit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, !,

concur."avide, r!, C!!, and Panganiban, !, #oins Carpio and Calle#o, Sr!, !,in their separate opinion.

Carpio, !,please see separate concurrin opinion.

Calle#o, Sr!, !,please see separate opinion.

Corona, !,on leave.

SEARATE CONC!RRING OINION

CARIO, J.:

I concur with the ponencia. The DN0 evidence presented b$ petitioner-relator is not +aterial and relevant to the cri+e of rape.

Even assu+in petitioner is not the father of the child that was conceived within the period of the rape, such fact does not

prove that petitioner could not have co++itted the cri+e. The re+edies of habeas corpus and new trial are thus unavailin in

this case.

Aowever, this case should not close the door to a convicted felon who after final &ud+ent acBuires DN0 results eoneratin

hi+ of the cri+e for which he was convicted. 6eal relief is still available, for instance, to a felon convicted b$ final &ud+entof rape who subseBuentl$ ains access to DN0 results showin that the se+en in the victi+>s vaina does not +atch that of the

convicted felon.

9hile final &ud+ents en&o$ the presu+ption of correctness, the confinin and traditional leal procedures +ust respond to the

revolutionar$ wa$ that DN0 results have been provin the innocence of convicts. 0+erican &urisprudence has shown the wa$

in this reard.

2efore the enact+ent of statutes in so+e states providin for post-conviction DN0 testin, 0+erican courts had no precedents

to wor( on to &ustif$ post-conviction DN0 testin and the reversal of final &ud+ents of conviction when the DN0 results

turned out to be eculpator$. 2efore the passae of the DN0 testin statutes, it was unclear under what riht and procedure a

convict was entitled to post-conviction DN0 testin. Even in the absence of statutes, 0+erican courts allowed post-conviction

DN0 testin b$ reBuirin the convict to appl$ for such testin before the verdict could be vacated.The application enables the

courts to deter+ine the basis for the application and to set the standards in case the reBuest is ranted. Once the DN0 result

confir+s the innocence of the convict, 0+erican courts conduct a +otion in li+ine hearin on ad+issibilit$ or order a new

trial."The prosecution usuall$ refuses to re-tr$ the case and the convict is released.

nder 0+erican &urisprudence, post-conviction DN0 testin is availed throuh a petition for habeas corpus and +otion for

new trial. These conventional +odes of relief, however, have built-in restrictions that pose proble+s to the rantin of post-

conviction DN0 testin.

In habeas corpus cases, relief could not be had unless a constitutional violation was co++itted durin the convict>s trial. In a+otion for new trial, the convict +ust show that the DN0 test is a newl$ discovered evidence and +ust not be ti+e-barred to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt1achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt2achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt1achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt2ac


6/6

warrant a new trial. Despite these leal obstacles, 0+erican courts ranted, albeit restrictivel$, the reBuest for post-conviction

DN0 testin on a case-b$-case basis. The approach to the leal issues varied fro+ &urisdiction to &urisdiction.

In Su++erville v. 9arden State #risons clai+ ofactual innocence. In #eople v. Callace,=the New or( court considered post-conviction DN0 testin as newl$ discovered

evidence because the t$pe of DN0 anal$sis available at the post-conviction stae was not available at the ti+e of the trial. In

State v. Tho+as,8

funda+ental fairness allowed the convict to post-conviction DN0 testin even when the reBuest was alread$stale.

Aabeas corpus review and new trial proved to be narrow re+edies as 0+erican courts still adhere to the strict reBuire+ents of

these two +odels of relief. Nonetheless, post-conviction DN0 testin has been ranted on other rounds. 9hen the application

of DN0 testin has stron indications that the result could potentiall$ eonerate the convict, 0+erican courts reconi4ed the

convict>s riht to eculpator$ evidence. In Dabbs v. %erari,:citin 2rad$ v. 3ar$land,@the court cateoricall$ upheld theconvict>s constitutional riht to eculpator$ evidence despite the absence of a law providin a riht to post-conviction

discover$. DN0 results eonerated Charles Dabbs and his conviction was eventuall$ vacated.?On other cases,7the eculpator$

potential of DN0 evidence co+pelled the 0+erican courts, in the interest of &ustice, to allow access to post-conviction DN0

testin.

The rectification of a wron is the underl$in reason for the allowance of post-conviction DN0 testin and the eventual

reversal of the verdict based on eclusionar$ DN0 result. Even the +ost strinent of rules have to ive wa$ upon a showinthat there is a stron probabilit$ that DN0 result could prove the convict>s actual innocence. *or ulti+atel$, it is the pri+ar$

dut$ of the court to prevent the +iscarriae of &ustice.

Ever$ person has a riht to avail of a new technolo$ that irrefutabl$ proves his innocence despite a prior final conviction,

provided the new technolo$ was not available durin his trial. This riht is part of a person>s constitutional riht to due

process of law. 0 person convicted b$ final &ud+ent does not lose his constitutional riht to due process, and he +a$ invo(e it

whenever there is a co+pellin and valid round to do so.

The 7?@ Constitution epressl$ e+powers the Court to ;GpHro+ulate rules concernin the protection and enhance+ent of

constitutional rihts.;!Even in the absence of a law allowin post-conviction DN0 testin, the Court under its constitutional

+andate +a$ order a new trial if the post-conviction DN0 testin will establish that the convicted felon could not have

possibl$ co++itted the cri+e. This is the case when the post-conviction DN0 testin shows that the se+en in the victi+>s

vaina does not +atch that of the convicted felon.

0 new trial on the round of post-conviction DN0 testin is different fro+ a new trial under Rule ",which is available

onl$ before final &ud+ent. nli(e a new trial under Rule ", a new trial for post-conviction DN0 testin does not vacate the

&ud+ent of conviction, which stands until recalled b$ the court as a result of the new trial. 0 new trial after final conviction+a$ be ordered onl$ on the sole round that DN0 testin will establish that the convicted felon could not have co++itted the

cri+e. 3oreover, DN0 testin +ust not have been available or possible durin the oriinal trial.

Thus, I sub+it that a felon convicted b$ final &ud+ent who could establish throuh DN0 testin that he could not have

co++itted the cri+e is not without re+ed$ to prove his innocence and reain his libert$.

SEARATE CONC!RRING OINION

CA##EO, SR., J.:

I concur with the ponencia and the separate concurrin opinion of 'ustice 0ntonio T. Carpio that the convicted felon +ust be

allowed an opportunit$ to adduce DN0 evidence. Aowever, such a re+ed$ issui generisto ive the convicted felon a chance

to adduce DN0 evidence until Rule " of the Revised Rules of Cri+inal #rocedure is revised anew. Such a re+ed$ is a(in toa +otion for a new trial in the oriinal case on the round of newl$ discovered evidence under Section "/b1, Rule " of the

Revised Rules of Cri+inal #rocedure, which reads)

SEC. ". Grounds $or a ne% trial. J The court shall rant a new trial on an$ of the followin rounds)

/a1 That errors of law or irreularities pre&udicial to the substantial rihts of the accused have been co++itted durin

the trial

/b1 That new and +aterial evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable dilience have

discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and ad+itted would probabl$ chane the &ud+ent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt3achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt3achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt6achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt7achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt11achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt11achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt3achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt4achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt5achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt6achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt7achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt8achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt9achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt10achttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.html#fnt11ac

Documents

habeas corpus de villa.doc