REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF METRO MANILA
MANILA, BRANCH 1

MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE

THE ACCUSED, DANIEL ABADILLO PADILLA, assisted by his newly retained
defense counsel, respectfully states:
I.

SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS MOTION

The subject matter of this motion is the DECISION, dated November 11, 2014, which
was promulgated on November 24, 2014. (See Order issued November 24, 2014
allowing the accused provisional liberty under the same bond for purposes of appeal).
This motion is VERIFIED. The accused adopts the full body of this motion as his
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT in support of his motion.
II.

MATERIAL DATES

The said Decision having been promulgated on November 24, 2014 in the presence of
the accused and his former counsel, Atty. Edmund Dantes, the 15th day of the accused
to file this motion would expire on November 26, 2014. This motion is intended to be
filed by the undersigned counsel on November 28, 2014.
III.

GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

The accused seeks a RE-OPENING of the case on the following grounds:

1. The prosecution evidence has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. The former defense counsel, Atty. Edmund Dantes, had committed gross negligence
resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice and in a grave violation of the fundamental
constitutional rights of the accused to:
(a) procedural and substantive due process of law,
(b) to equal protection of the law, and
(c) to competent and independent counsel,
all of which warrants a RE-OPENING of the case to enable the accused, in the interest
of truth and justice, to present crucial exculpating evidence discussed herein below
which his former counsel, by his gross negligence, failed to introduce in his defense to
prove his innocence, i.e., the receipt proving that he had indeed purchased the items
from B and G Company's Food and Concession services , and CCTV footage of the
accused in the B and G Company cafeteria--evidence, which, if admitted, would result
in his ACQUITTAL for the offense of theft.
The crucial exculpating evidence referred to above are as follows:
1.

Annex A. a duly certified receipt from B and G Company's Food and

Concession services Operations Manager Portia Valderama, proving that accused Daniel
Padilla indeed paid for one (1) bottle of Florida Natural Lemonade and three (3)
waterproof Otterbox cases emblazoned with the B and G Company logo.
It certifies that the accused Daniel Padilla was able to pay for the items he allegedly
stole, thus proving his innocence.
2. Annex B. - CCTV footage from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm on the date of May 27,
2014 of the B and G Company cafeteria, wherein it can be seen that Operations
Manager Portia Valderama indeed saw the accused place the aforementioned items into
his bag prior to payment at the cash register, instead of in the plastic bag which she is
seen to offer him after payment.
Neither of these crucial pieces of evidence was introduced by the former counsel
of the accused during trial, thus denying him the opportunity to present vital
and exculpating evidence.
A. Gross Negligence of the Former Defense Counsel. - The accused
respectfully submits that his former defense counsel, Atty. Edmund
Dantes had committed gross negligence resulting in a grave
miscarriage of justice and in a grave violation of the fundamental
constitutional rights of the accused to: (a) procedural and
substantive due process of law, (b) to equal protection of the law,
and (c) to competent and independent counselall of which
warrants a RE-OPENING of the case to enable the accused to present
crucial exculpating evidence discussed, which, if admitted, would
result in his ACQUITTAL.
The gross negligence and failure of the former counsel for the accused to
introduce and present the evidence referred to above, has resulted in a grave
miscarriage of justice and in a grave violation of the fundamental
constitutional rights of the accused to: (a) procedural and substantive due
process of law, (b) to equal protection of the law, and (c) to competent and
independent counsel -- all of which warrants a RE-OPENING of the case to
enable the accused, to present crucial exculpating evidence, evidence which, if
admitted, would result in his ACQUITTAL.
B. JURISPRUDENCE. - The accused is aware of the jurisprudence that, as a general
rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. (Villa Rhecar Bus vs. Dela Cruz,
No. L-78936, January 7, 1988, 157 SCRA 13).
However, jurisprudence allows an exception, that it, x x x when the negligence of the
counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court.
In such instance, the remedy is to reopen the case and allow the party who was
denied his day in court to adduce evidence. (Producers Bank of the Philippines vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126620, April 17, 2002, 381 SCRA 185, 192).
Further, in this regard, the accused hereby quotes extensively the ruling of the Supreme
Court in the case of CALLANGAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 153414, June 27,
2006,where it held that: The rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits
of exceptions:
(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of

law,
(2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or
property or
(3) where the interests of justice so require.
THUS:
x x x.
However, in view of the circumstances of this case, outright deprivation of
liberty will be the consequence of petitioners criminal conviction based
solely on the evidence for the prosecution. Thus, to prevent a miscarriage
of justice and to give meaning to the due process clause of the
Constitution, the Court deems it wise to allow petitioner to present
evidence in her defense.
The rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of
exceptions. The recognized exceptions are: (1) where reckless or gross
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, (2) when
its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or
property or (3) where the interests of justice so require. In such cases,
courts must step in and accord relief to a party-litigant.
The omissions of petitioners counsel amounted to an abandonment or total
disregard of her case. They show conscious indifference to or utter
disregard of the possible repercussions to his client. Thus, the chronic
inaction of petitioners counsel on important incidents and stages of the
criminal proceedings constituted gross negligence.
X x x.
In criminal cases, the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel is
immutable. Otherwise, there will be a grave denial of due process. The
right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process
which basically means that a person must be heard before being
condemned.

C. RULES OF COURT. Sec. 24, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that at any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge
may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the
proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it.
In the case at bar, the decision therein has not yet become final and executory as of the
filing of this motion.
IV.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Decision, dated

xxx and promulgated on xxx, be SET ASIDE and that an order be issued RE-OPENING
the trial of the instant case, as explained above, to enable the accused to introduce

crucial exculpating evidence that his former counsel had grossly neglected to introduce.
Manila, November 28, 2014
BRIES BRIES VILLANUEVA
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Accused Daniel A. Padilla
Unit 17, Goldstar Building, West Ave.
West Triangle Village, Quezon City 1107
Tel. Nos. 8725443 & 8462539

LESLY R. BRIES
Roll No. 17898, 11/7/90
IBP Lifetime Member No. 1907
IBP Quezon City Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-1326, 2/3/11
PTR No. 4609033, 1/3/13, Quezon City

NOTICE OF HEARING
1. Branch Clerk of Court
MTC 25
Manila
2. Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila
3. Atty. Justine Martinez
Private Prosecutor
Mabuhay:
The undersigned defense counsel shall present the foregoing motion to the Honorable
Court, for its kind consideration and approval, on November 28, 2014, 8:30 AM. Thank
you.

LESLY R. BRIES

Cc:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice
Natividad Lopez St, Ermita,
Manila
(personal delivery)
Atty. Justine Martinez
Private Prosecutor
xxx
Reg. Rec. No. ________________
Date ________________ P.O. ___________
EXPLANATION
A copy of this motion is served on the private prosecutor via registered mail due to
the distance of her law office address in Manila and due to the urgency of filing the
same.

LESLY R. BRIES