7/25/2019 Pulido V CA
1/4
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-28217 July 31, 1970
REYNALDO PULDO Y !OJAS, petitioner,
vs.
T"E "ONORA#LE Cou$% o& APPEALS '() T"E PEOPLE O! T"E
P"LPPNES, respondents.
G. Cabo Chan and G. Centeno for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
REYES, J.#.L., J.:
Petition for review of a resolution of the Court of Appeals
(Case No. 0!"0#Cr.$ den%in&
a 'otion for reconsideration and new trial.
Char&ed and tried in the Court of irst )nstance of Manila
with the cri'es of briber% and
falsification of a private docu'ent, Re%naldo Pulido % o*as was
convicted of the first
offense char&ed and ac+uitted of the second. e was sentenced
to not less than -
'onths and da%s of arresto mayor and not 'ore than %ear, "
'onths and da%s
ofprision correccional, plus a fine of /en /housand Pesos
(P0,000.00$ with subsidiar%
i'prison'ent, and " %ears and da% of te'porar% special
dis+ualification.
pon his appeal, throu&h a special division, the Court of
Appeals affir'ed the *ud&'ent
of the court a quo b% a vote of 1 (2ustices Es+uerra, 3ucero,
Ca4i5ares and Martin$ to
(2ustice 6at'aitan$ on " ebruar% 78!. After his petition for
certiorari was re*ected b%the 9upre'e Court (6.R. No. 3#!170$,
appellant Pulido petitioned the Court of Appeals
for new trial on alle&ed newl% discovered evidence (a$ that
the special division of five of
the Court of Appeals, which affir'ed his conviction, was
ille&all% constituted, because
2ustices 3ucero and Es&uerra of the Ma*orit% were
dis+ualified to sit, and (b$ that one
risco Pan&aniban, after the decision of the Court of
Appeals, had written to appellant
Pulido revealin& that it was he (Pan&aniban$ who reall%
received the bribe 'one%. /he
7/25/2019 Pulido V CA
2/4
petition for new trial was re*ected b% the special division,
this ti'e with 2ustice
6at'aitan and Ca4i5ares dissentin&. Appellant Pulido
resorted to this Court for the
second ti'e, insistin& that he should be declared entitled
to a new trial.
:e find no 'erit in the ar&u'ent that 2ustice 3ucero of the
Court of Appeals was
dis+ualified to sit in the case beca'e i''aterial to the' or to
2ustice 3ucero whether
Evelio 6eroche at the preli'inar% investi&ation of the case
for falsification, and Attorne%
2ose C. ;ulueta, a first cousin of the 2usticeffice of the
President, he sat in the
ad'inistrative investi&ation of appellant for his peculation
while e'plo%ed in the Central
Ban?. As head of the 3e&al 9taff, 2ustice Es&uerra
7/25/2019 Pulido V CA
4/4
6eroche will ever &ive such substantial a'ount of P0,000.00
to a total
stran&er to hi', whose connection with or influence
a'on& officials of the
Central Ban? is not even shown. Considerin& that the
proffered newl%
discovered evidence or the testi'on% of its writer, risco
Pan&aniban,
even if ad'itted and considered b% the Court, is valueless, it
cannot
prevail over positive evidence, with 'uch corroboration of
the
prosecutionRE, the order of the Court of Appeals den%in&
Re%naldo Pulido
