In granting a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the evidence presented must be in actual existence and unknown to the party even if a judgment had been rendered before.


Facts: 

Baylosis  was charged  of  the  crime  estafa  for  having  feloniously  misappropriated for  his own  use  and  benefit  the  amount  of  Php118,181.71  in  his capacity as custodian/warehouse supervisor of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Incorporated (PCPPI). The RTC found him guilty of the crime charged.

He filed his Notice of Appeal and thereafter, a Motion for New Trial with the CA. In his motion, he begged the CA to consider the affidavit of a certain  Zenaida C. Aya-ay, the  Credit and Collection Manager of PCPPI, stating that the accused had a remaining balance of only PhP 21,981.71. He prayed for the  remand  of the  case to the RTC for new trial, and that he be allowed to change his previous plea of not guilty to guilty. However,  the CA denied Baylosis’ Motion for New trial. 


Issue:

Did the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for New Trial?


Held:

No. In granting a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the evidence presented must be in actual existence and unknown to the party even if a judgment had been rendered before. This should be the case because otherwise, how could it be discovered evidence when it did not in fact exist previously during trial?

Perusal of the Affidavit executed by Zenaida Aya-ay reveals that the alleged payments were all made after the rendition of the assailed Decision. It is obvious that the same cannot be executed, much less produced, during the trial since the payments were made after judgment or after the fact. Hence, the same could hardly be classified as newly discovered evidence. (Baylosis vs. People, G.R. No. 152119, August 14, 2007)