Scribd
Upload
6 views1 page

US vs. Tan Jenjua Case Reopening Denied

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from November 5, 1901. The case involved an appeal by the defendant Tan Jenjua of his conviction. The court denied the petition of Francisco Ortigas to reopen the case. The court found that no newly discovered evidence was presented, as required by the rules to reopen a case. Additionally, any error by the lower court in administering an oath could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

dats_idji
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views1 page

US vs. Tan Jenjua Case Reopening Denied

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from November 5, 1901. The case involved an appeal by the defendant Tan Jenjua of his conviction. The court denied the petition of Francisco Ortigas to reopen the case. The court found that no newly discovered evidence was presented, as required by the rules to reopen a case. Additionally, any error by the lower court in administering an oath could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

dats_idji
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

9/22/2019 G.R. No.

L-85

Today is Sunday, September 22, 2019

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-85 November 5, 1901

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,


vs.
TAN JENJUA, defendant-appellant.

Francisco Ortigas, for appellant.


Fermin Mariano, for private complainant.
Assistant Attorney-General Constantino, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

Attorney Francisco Ortigas has filed a petition soliciting the reopening of this case in accordance with the provisions
of section 42 of General Orders, No. 58. The reopening of a cause under section 42 is only available when there
exists newly discovered evidence. If the accused or his attorney knew what would be the testimony of the absent
witness or could have known it by the exercise of proper diligence, it can not be said that he has discovered these
proofs after the trial. No affidavit whatever setting forth the facts upon this point accompanies the petition as is
required by the aforesaid section 42.

It is, of course, evident that the error of the judge of the inferior court, if error it was, in the manner of administering
the oath to the Chinese witness, can not be presented as newly discovered evidence.

For the foregoing reasons the petition is denied without deciding (1) whether the judgment has become final as soon
as registered here, thereby making this motion inopportune; or, in case it has not become final (2), whether this
motion should have been made before the lower court, since the cause has been remanded and is no longer a
cause pending before this court.

The motion is therefore denied with costs taxed against the moving party, and it is so ordered. [Link]

Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.


Torres, J., did not sit in this case.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

[Link] 1/1

You might also like