Newly Discovered Evidence

Ladines v. People of the Philippines

Facts:

Ladines and one Licup were charged with Homicide. The RTC only convicted Ladines
while acquitted Licup. The CA affirmed it. Later, Ladines found a newly discovered evidence
— Licup’s statement was that he himself, Licup, stabbed the victim. Thus Ladines’ Petition for
Certioriari against the CA, arguing that Licup’s statement created a reasonable doubt as to
Ladines’ guilt. The People, through the OSG, argued that the two requisites of the Berry Rule
were absent in the case.

Issue:

Is the statement a newly discovered evidence?

Ruling:

No, the statement is not a newly discovered evidence because the two guidelines/
requisites of the Berry Rule were absent in the case. Ladines, by his exercise of reasonable
diligence, could have sooner discovered and easily produced the proposed evidence
during the trial. He could have obtained a certified copy of the police blotter containing the
alleged statement of Licup, and the relevant documents and testimonies of other key witnesses
to substantiate his (Ladines’) denial of criminal responsibility.

Under the 1851 case of Berry v. State of Georgia, which is known to us as the Berry
Rule, before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must
be shown that:
(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;

(2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and

(4) it is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.