Before the Court for consideration are the second motion for reconsideration and new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence filed by accused-appellants Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan (with leave duly granted), the State's opposition thereto, appellants' reply, and said appellants' memorandum and the State's reply thereto, in lieu of oral argument, filed pursuant to the hearing on motion set by the Court on June 17, 1970.

The affidavits of Ernesto Gargaritano, and more particularly, of Ildefonso Capinding and Restituto Ger­saneva (annexes A, B and C), whose testimonies on certain crucial matters could not be presented at the trial due to no fault of the accused-appellants, raise grave and substantial doubt that the original judgment imposing the near-extreme penalty of reclusion perpetua would have been so rendered if the material testimonies of these affiants were then introduced and admitted.  The Court took into ac­count its findings on the evidence of record in its decision under reconsideration that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the accused and that "the command shouted by Fidelina, 'Rufino, strike him' was not the moving cause of the act of Rufino Gensola.  The evidence shows that Rufino would have commited the act of his own volition, even with­out said words of command".

The Court believes it imperative, therefore, in order to assure against any possible miscarriage of justice, to grant a reopening of the trial at which the testimonies of these affiants and such other evidence of both prosecu­tion and defense as the trial court may in the interest of justice allow to be introduced, may be duly presented.

The Court's judgment of September 30, 1969 is hereby reconsidered and set aside, insofar as the accused-appellants Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan are concerned.  The trial court's original judgment of February 8, 1965 against the said accused-appellants Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan is likewise set aside.  The records of the case are remanded to the lower court for new trial pursuant to Rule 121, section 5(b) and (c) of the Rules of Court, at which the evidence al­ready taken shall stand and the evidence of the three above-named affiants and such other evidence of both prosecution and defense as the trial court may in the interest of justice allow to be introduced, shall be taken and considered with the evidence already in the record, and a new judgment there­after rendered by the lower court.

Insofar as the accused, Rufino Gensola, is concerned, the appealed judgment against him, as modified by the Court's judgment of September 30, 1969, reducing his penalty from life imprisonment to an indeterminate penalty of from 3 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 3 years of prison correccional as maximum, has become final and stands, since no motion for reconsideration thereof was filed on his be­half.  Let the corresponding judgment against him be entered as of the date of its finality.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Barredo and Makasiar, JJ., did not take part.