Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
Rule 121
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
Now, there is a new section in the New Rules which created confusion Rule 119 Section 24.
SEC. 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the
judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the
proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated
within thirty (30) days from the order granting it. (n)
When do you make the motion for reopening? At anytime before the judgment of conviction
becomes final? Pareho di ba! The language of the 3 provisions are identical, motion for: (1) reopening of
trial; (2) modification of judgment of conviction; and (3) new trial or reconsideration
That is a new provision. So that when I looked at the new Rules, talagang nalito ako. Ano ba itong
reopening of trial. How is this different from the others?
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
That is why, during the seminar in Men Seng last November 30 on the New Rules, I brought this
out, eh. Would somebody be kind enough to tell the difference between the three? Everything kasi is
done before the judgment of conviction becomes final! Of course, nobody stood up there to tell me the
difference.
Kaya nalito ako. Former Solicitor General Galvez, when he was here, told me that typographical
error man yung Rule 119 ba, hindi man ganyan ang aming recommendation. Why nga naman will you
reopen after judgment of conviction? Reopenning is done before judgment is rendered. Ito naman,
paglabas! Naloko na! It created a lot of confusion. So if we believe Galvez, the confusion is caused by a
typographical error, which according to him is not the language of the Rules submitted to the SC and
somebody tinkered with that provision.
There is also a rule on New Trial in civil cases under Rule 37, you know the grounds: FAME, NDE,
etc. And there are some rules there to follow such as the motion for new trial must be supported by
affidavits of merits, or the motion for reconsideration must point out specifically the error committed
by the trial court, and the portion of the decision not supported by the evidence. Otherwise, if you do
not comply with these requisites, what is the name of your motion? PRO FORMA. Pro Forma, meaning
the filing of your motion for new trial or reconsideration will NOT interrupt the period to appeal. That
is the effect.
This is now the question:
Q: Is there such a thing as pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration in criminal cases?
Where your motion is obviously dilatory? Your grounds are too general, too vague, too ambiguous? No
affidavit of merits? And therefore if it is denied, there is no more right to appeal by the accused
applying the pro forma rule?
A: The SC ruled in the past that the pro forma rule in civil cases DOES NOT apply to criminal
cases. In criminal cases, a general statement of the grounds for new trial is sufficient. (People vs.
Colmenares, 57 O.G. 3714) Even if you do not go into details because you expect your motion to be
denied, but the filing will still interrupt the period. It is too harsh if the remedy of appeal will be
removed from the accused simply because of a motion for new trial which is not prepared properly. So
the pro forma rule will not apply in criminal cases. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration will always interrupt the running of the period to appeal.
Q: Alright, what are the grounds for new trial?
A: Section 2:
SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the
following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused have been committed during the trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could
not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.
Q: What are the grounds for a new trial?
A: Under Section, the following are the grounds:
1. Errors of law;
Example: In one case, during the trial, the trial court excluded a defense witness from
testifying based on an erroneous interpretation of the rules of evidence. The judge disqualified
him. But it turned out that the witness was not disqualified. That is an error of law. For all you
know, if his testimony will be given, the accused will be acquitted. Therefore, a new trial should
be granted where he should be allowed to testify. (People vs. Estefa, 86 Phil. 104)
2. irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused;
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
Example: In one case, the trial court compelled the accused, over his objection, to submit
to trial without the assistance of his counsel. (People vs. Enriquez, L-4934, November 28,
1951) If the accused is convicted because of such irregularity, this is a valid ground for new
trial. Besides, why should the judge punish the accused? He should punish the lawyer.
3. Newly discovered evidence; this is similar to civil cases, newly discovered evidence. The
requisites are the same:
a.) discovered after trial;
b.) it could not have been discovered before trial even with the use of reasonable diligence
c.) and if introduced and admitted would probably change the decision
Sometimes I have seen affidavits of recantation made by the complainant, alam mo kung anong
nakalagay? I have lost interest in continuing the case. Pero tapos na, naka-testify na siya. And on
the basis of that, a new trial was granted. Mali man iyan ba. Para mag-new trial, dapat na sabihin
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
niya, Mali ang mga sinabi ko! If you say that you are not interested, you are not really repudiating
what you said. That is what the SC emphasized in the 1998 case of
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
HELD: Where a witness testifies for the prosecution and retracts his or her testimony
and subsequently testifies for the defense, the test in determining which testimony to
believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules in evidence.
So you apply what you know about evidence, about credibility, appreciation of evidence.
The rule should be that a testimony solemnly given in court should not be lightly set
aside and that before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent
one be carefully compared, the circumstances under which each given carefully scrutinized,
the reasons or motives for the change carefully scrutinized in other words, all the
expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses should be utilized to
determine which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth.
Of course, if the court believes that the second testimony is accurate and the witness lied during
the first, then acquit! But if the court believes that the witness was telling the truth in the first
testimony, the conviction stands.
So take note of that because these are misunderstood concepts eh.
RECONSIDERATION
SEC. 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall grant reconsideration on the
ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings.
(3a)
SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. If
based on a newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of
witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or by duly authenticated
copies of documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence. Notice of the
motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor. (4a)
SEC. 5. Hearing on motion. Where a motion for new trial calls for resolution of any
question of fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise. (5a)
Q: Is there an instance when a MOTION for reconsideration or new trial is PROHIBITED?
A: YES when the case is tried in the MTC under the Summary Rules. Bawal man iyan ba! Thats
a prohibited motion. Now you just take note of that. Under Section 19[c] of the Revised Summary
Rules, a motion for reconsideration or new trial of a final judgment is prohibited.
Q: Of course, what are the effects of granting the motion for new trial or reconsideration.
A: You have Section 6:
SEC. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. The effects of granting a
new trial or reconsideration are the following:
(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities
committed during the trial, all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be
set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the
introduction of additional evidence.
(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the
evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other evidence
as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and
considered together with the evidence already in the record.
(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original
judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly. (6a)
Rule 121
New Trial Or
Reconsideration
Q: Will there be really a trial de novo or will there just be a reopening of the trial to introduce the
newly discovered evidence?
A: Under paragraph [c] which we already discussed: In all cases, when the court grants new trial
or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered
accordingly.
Q: Suppose after new trial, the court still finds the accused guilty?
A: There will be another judgment but definitely the original judgment is already set aside. When
the court grants the motion, wala na iyon! Regardless of whether the new judgment will be the same or
not.
So with that, we are now through with Rule 121.
SPACE-FILLER #8:
A friend and I were shopping for dresses for her threeyear-old girls to wear to a wedding. In the shop, another
girl staring intently at Sarah and Becky asked, Are those
girls twins?
Actually theyre triplets, I explained. They have a
brother at home.
Wow, she replied. They sure look like twins to me.
Source: Readers Digest, November 2000