Jose v.

CA FACTS: Petitioner Lorenzo Jose who was convicted of illegal possession of explosives (handgrenade) and sentenced to s ffer i!prison!ent of five "ears# see$s a new trial which was denied hi! %" the Co rt& petitioner Jose was arrested %" the local police leading to the filing with the Co rt of First 'nstance of Pa!panga# (ranch ''' of several cri!inal cases against hi! to wit: illegal discharge of firear! (Cri!& Case )*+,)# ro%%er" (Cri!& Case )*+)) and illegal possession of explosives (Cri!& Case )*+-)& The records of Cri!inal Case )*+- were then elevated to the Co rt of Appeals where petitioner as acc sed.appellant raised the iss es of (/) an erroneo s conviction for illegal possession of explosives when there was no proof of an essential ele!ent of the cri!e# and (*) erroneo s denial of his !otion to reopen the case for the reception of his per!it to possess the handgrenade& petitioner was facing a cri!inal prosec tion for illegal possession of a handgrenade in the co rt %elow& 0e clai!ed to %e an agent of the Philippine Consta% lar" with a per!it to possess explosives s ch as the handgrenade in 1 estion& 0owever# he fo nd hi!self in a sit ation where he had to !a$e a choice 2 reveal his 'dentit" as an ndercover agent of the Philippine Consta% lar" assigned to perfor! intelligence wor$ on s %versive activities and face possi%le reprisals or even li1 idation at the hands of the dissidents considering that Florida%lanca the site of the incident# was in the heart of 30 $landia3# or ride on the hope of a possi%le exoneration or ac1 ittal %ased on ins fficienc" of the evidence of the prosec tion& CA r led affir!ing the findings of fact and the 4 dg!ent of conviction of the co rt a quo# and declaring that no reversi%le error was co!!itted %" the latter& Forthwith# appellant Lorenzo Jose assisted %" co nsel# Att"& Francisco Carreon# filed with 5s this petition for review which 6e denied o tright& The Solicitor 7eneral opposed the granting of the foregoing !otion for reconsideration clai!ing that there was neither a denial of 3s %stantial 4 stice nor error of an" sort on the part of respondent Co rt of Appeals# affir!ing the 4 dg!ent of convinction#3 and that it %eing ad!itted %" petitioner that the evidence so ght to %e introd ced %" hi! at the new trial is not newl" discovered evidence# the denial of the new trial 3visi%l" papers as correct3& This 8pposition drew a length" repl" fro! petitioner9s co nsel& a :anifestation was s %!itted %" the Solicitor 7eneral infor!ing the Co rt that in view of the 3 Persistence of acc sed petitioner Lorenzo Jose %oth %efore this 0onora%le Co rt and respondent Co rt of Appeals as to his alleged existing appoint!ent as PC Agent and;or a thorit" to handgrenade#3 in the interest of 4 stice# he was constrained to !a$e pertinent in1 iries fro! the PC Chief# 7en& Fidel <& =a!os who in repl" sent his letter& the Co rt resolved to set aside the denial of this petition for review# to give d e co rse and consider the Petition as a special civil action& 'SS5>: 6;? the co rt acted with grave a% se of discretion 0>L@: A>S& The fail re of the Co rt of Appeals to appreciate the !erits of the sit ation# involving as it does the li%ert" of an individ al# there%" closing its ear to a plea that a !iscarriage of 4 stice %e averted# constit tes a grave a% se of discretion which calls for relief fro! this Co rt& At the o tset# We give due credit to the Solicitor General and his staff for upholding the time-honored principle set forth in perspicuous terms by this Court in Suarez vs. Platon, et al that a prosecuting officer, as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation and interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that ustice shall be done, has the solemn responsibility to assure the public that while guilt shall not escape, innocene shall not suffer. 6e do not 1 estion the correctness of the findings of the Co rt of Appeals that the evidence so ght to %e presented %" the petitioner do not fall nder the categor" of newl".discovered evidence %eca se the sa!e 2 his alleged appoint!ent as an agent of the Philippine Consta% lar" and a per!it to possess a handgrenade 2 were s pposed to %e $nown to petitioner and existing at the ti!e of trial and not discovered onl" thereafter& 6itho t revealing his 'dentit" as an agent of the Philippine Consta% lar"# he clai!ed %efore the trial 4 dge that he had a per!it to possess the handgrenade and pra"ed for ti!e to present the sa!e& The per!it however co ld not %e prod ced %eca se it wo ld reveal his intelligence wor$ activities& Ca!e the 4 dg!ent of conviction and with it the staggering i!pact of a five."ear i!prison!ent& The co!petent a thorities then realized that it was n4 st for this !an to go to 4ail for a cri!e he had not co!!itted# hence# ca!e the desired evidence concerning petitioner9s appoint!ent as a Philippine Consta% lar" agent and his a thorit" to possess a handgrenade for the protection of his person# % t# it was too late according to the trial co rt %eca se in the !eanti!e the acc sed had perfected his appeal& 6e find and hold that the a%ove circ !stances 4 stif" a reopening of petitioner9s cas to afford hi! the opport nit" of prod cing exc lpating exc lpating evidence& An o tright ac1 ittal fro! this Co rt which petitioner see$s as an alternative relief is not As correctl" stressed %" the Solicitor 7eneral# the People is to %e given the chance of exa!ining the doc !entar" so ght to %e prod ced# and of cross.exa!ining the persons who exec ted the sa!e# as well as the acc sed hi!self# now petitioner# on his explanation for the non.prod ction of the of the evidence d ring the trial&