G.R. No. 259589 (Formerly UDK-16849) - CHARLON FERNANDO Y ESMA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds CHARLON FERNANDO [ y ] ESMA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Carnapping defined and penalized under Republic Act [No.] 6539[,] as amended[,] and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from [14] years and [eight] months, as minimum, to [17] years and [four] months, as maximum, and to pay the cost. . . . . SO DECIDED. [13] In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC in toto . [14] Undeterred, Charlon filed a Motion for New Trial [15] before the CA, alleging that the primary witness for the prosecution, Darius, had executed a Salaysay ng Pag-urong [16] (Affidavit of Retraction) dated March 2, 2020, where the latter voluntarily sought the retraction of his previous statement before the RTC and declared that he did not see Charlon take the motorcycle of Francisco, that it was his aunt and uncle, Joan and Francisco, who taught him what to say to the investigating officers and the court, that he was still a minor at the time he testified, and that he was persuaded to lie before the court. In denying the Motion for New Trial in its assailed Resolution, the CA ruled that the Salaysay ng Pag-urong is an affidavit of recantation, which it reluctantly finds to be sufficient ground for a new trial, absent any other newly discovered evidence. Even assuming that a new trial is ordered, this new testimony from Darius would hardly persuade a reversal since mere retraction by a witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony, if credible. [17] Hence, this Petition, arguing that the retraction made by the primary witness casts reasonable doubt on petitioner's guilt and that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied his Motion for New Trial on account of said recantation. In its Comment, [18] the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, averred that the Petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, particularly for failing to attach material portions of the record and for raising factual issues that are beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition, and since the prosecution established all the elements of carnapping. [19] Further, the CA correctly denied the Motion for New Trial since the Affidavit of Retraction, executed after the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction, has no probative value and cannot be the basis for a new trial. [20] II We have, in the past, suspended Our Rules to serve substantial justice considering: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. [21] Considering