RULE 124

APPEAL before C.A

-if you want to file an appeal before the Court of Appeals requirements are necessary
-these are decisions from the RTC in the exercise of its Originlal Jurisdiction
Note: in your caption,PP, Plaintiff Appellant vs. Juan dela Cruz, Accused Appellee
-more often than not it is always the accused who files the appeal in cases of double jeopardy, except in cases when the
prosecution is allowed to file an appealone of which is for purposes of Civil Liability
There is one provision there where the court will appoint a council de officio, to assist the accused in his appeal, Q: When will
this happen?
A: when the accused is in prison, and during his appeal he was not assisted with a council.
Q: How will the court know that talaga, the accused shall be granted a council de officio?
A: When the notice of appeal submitted in the Court of Appeals was not signed by a lawyer but rather signed by the accused
himself, this will serve as a warning that the accused was not assisted with a council.
And particular so when he is in prison, within 10 days *diba* he should be granted a council de officio.
Q: Can he move for the assistance of a council?
A: Yes. When he is not yet in prison and is not assisted by a council, he may pray that he be assisted by a council when his case
is pending appeal.
Q: The records of the case from the RTC is now received by the CA, , what should be done?
A: It will require the appellant to file his appellants brief. This shall be done within 30 days
Q: How many copies must the appellant file the appellants Brief?
A: 7, the accused must file seven legible copies, take note that the court is now strict with the so called, Efficient Use of Paper
Rule certain formalities on the format of the document like the indentionetc.
Copy furnish the appellee, 2 copies of the brief
Q: And what should be attached to the appellants brief?
A: Proof of service and a copy of the judgement subject of the appeal.
Q: How many days also shall the appellee file his appellees brief?
A: 30 days also form receipt of the appellants brief, copy furnish the accused 2 coppies
Q: Upon submission of this hat will happen next? Can the appellant choose to submit an assignment of errors?
In civil cases, one of the requirements in submitting a brief is the submission of assignment of errors. this is where the
appellate court will see on the assignment of errors and that shall form part of the appellees brief.
Q: Is it also required in criminal cases? That if the accused files his appellants brief that he should also place his assignment of
errors?
A: No. In Criminal cases, no. Because the entirety of the case is open for review by the appellate court. Unlike in civil cases, they
will only rely on the assignment of errors.
Q: The 30 day period. Can it be extended? If so, what are the grounds?

A: Yes, but very limited only for good cause and for compelling reasons but see to it that the brief shall have been submitted
before the lapse of the original period.
Q: How many days will the court decide the case? Is there no provision there that upon the submission of all the documents, the
court shall decide the case? Oh? In your Constitutional Law? When? For CA, is it not 12 months? But anyway it is not my
concern.
Okay, but there is a rule however that the court must always give priority in deciding appeals???
A: Priority shall be given to appeals where the accused is actually in detention.
Q: The court issued a notice the appellants for the appellant to submit his brief within 30 days from receipt of the order , no brief
was filed by the appellant accused, what is the effect of the non-filing?
A: The CA motu propio by its own decision, will dismiss the appeal but there shall always be of course a notice to the accused
appellant or it may also be done by means of motion of the appellee for failure to submit the required brief.
-very strict sila talaga thats why when you receive that and you have no time you shall file for an extension of time and you shall
allege there for good cause and for compelling reason, otherwise, more often than not, the appeal may be dismissed either (1)
motu propio by the CA or (2) by the motion of the appellee for non compliance with the required
Q: Can there be other grounds, other than this where the appeal may be dismissed?
A: Yes. These are:
1. When the accused appellant escapes from prison;
2. When he jumps bail; and
3. When he absconds and goes to another country.
Q: What is the reason? How come that these are considered as grounds for the dismissal of the appeal?
Lets say that the case is tried in RTC, trial in absentia commenced because the accused escaped from prison or jumped bail. A
decision was rendered convicting the accused of the crime charged. It was promulgated without his presence,
Q: Can the accused file a notice of appeal? By way of analogy, what is the reason there?
A: No. He loses his right in court unless he surrenders in court within the 15 day period for perfecting the appeal.
Q: Can there be a motion for new trial in court of appeals? If so, when should it be filed?
A: Yes. It shall be filed any time after the appeal but before the finality of the judgment.
Note: In procedure, focus on the period and when to start on counting the period.
Q: Of course there can also be a Motion for Reconsideration, and that shall be filed when?
A: 15 days from receipt of the Judgment. Not promulgation because decisions decided by the CA are not promulgated.
Note: FRESH PERIOD RULE of 15 days not only applicable in criminal cases but also in civil cases.
Kan Granney ginyayakan diri ko nababatian.
Q: When the court (CA) grants a motion for new trial what is the effect? Can it receive evidence? Or can it delegate? Or in itself
can I conduct its own trial?
A: Yes. If the court grants, it can receive evidence, and it can delegate the matter to the RTC for the purpose of receiving the
newly discovered evidence the obligation of that court is to transmit the evidence to the CA which will particularly decide on the
case involved.
RULE 120

JUDGMENT
We are now on judgment my dear students. The definition of what is judgment is found in section
one of Rule 120. So it is the adjudication of the court in determining whether diba, the accused is guilty or
not guilty of the crime charged. Where we may render a decision, there are supposedly certain
requirements there, they must state the facts and likewise the law upon which the facts are based
including the corresponding civil liability. Although there is parang a format, where we sometimes use the
format particulartly .. In fact, in cases of conviction what is it? Because we have to take into account
whether there are available aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and we will appreciate this particular
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it has to be stated likewise in the decision ok? The law
furthermore says that if the judgment is for acquittal, dapat the court has to determine whether the
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or the prosecution failed to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For the purpose of the civil liability aspect, kasi if, I have told you
this already, if the conviction, ay acquittal Im sorry, is premised on the fact that the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused because it was found out that the accused did not
commit the crime at all, you know your criminal law, that we cannot award the corresponding civil
liability. Ok Ill repeat, there is a justification in section one or two of the rule that if the decision is for
acquittal dapat we have to prove whether it is based on the fact that the prosecution absolutely failed to
prove the guilt of the accused because it was found out by the court that the accused did not commit the
crime at all, why? Because if that is the basis of our acquittal, then the court should not award the
corresponding civil liability, however, if the basis of acquittal my dear students is on the fact that the
prosecution was not able to prove the case of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, we can still award
civil liability as long as the prosecution was able to prove the case by mere preponderance of evidence. I
repeat, so when the acquittal is based on a declaration that the accused did not commit the crime at all, no
civil liability. But if the basis of acquittal is only on the fact that the prosecution was not able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then the court can still award civil liability my dear students
as long as the prosecution was able to prove the civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence. In the
recent decision of the Supreme Court, even without need of proof, civil liability as of 2014 is already 7,000
pesos, diba before it was 50? Now it is already 75,000. I repeat, recent jurisprudence is 75,000 pesos, it is
not in the book, although not part of our subject, the only exemplary damages, take note of this, if the
information alleges the aggravating circumstance. If the information did not allege any aggravating
circumstance the court, as a rule, should not award exemplary damages. Thats the recent decision of the
Supreme court, ok? Now, the judgment must be promulgated definitely. Do you know what is the
difference between promulgation to rendition of judgment? Ive told you that the judgment must be
promulgated, tapos we also have the concept of rendition of judgment. Do you know the basic difference
between the two? Rendition of judgment is different from promulgation of judgment. Rendition of
judgment is the FILING of the decision with the clerk of court while Promulgation of judgment is the
reading of the decision in an open court in the presence of the accused as a general rule. In fact, in several
decision of the Supreme court, it is required daw that in the making of the decision and the promulgation
of the decision must be made while the judge is still incumbent. So that when the judge rendered a
decision today tapos he retired three days thereafter without the decision being promulgated, can it be
promulgated by the next judge? The rule is NO. Otherwise, the promulgation becomes null and void that
is the basic rule.
Can the presence of the accused be dispensed when it is promulgation of judgment? Depende, if it
is for a light offense and that is, I repeat, a judgment of conviction, if promulgated in the presence of the
accuseds representative or his counsel. So other than that, it has to be in the presence of the accused as a
rule. What about when judgment is one of acquittal? Can it be promulgated? I repeat, the first step is, the
decision is conviction tapos my question is, it was promulgated in the absence of the accused. Thus the
question is, is it a valid promulgation? It depends. If it is for a light offense the rule is very clear that it can
be promulgated even in the absence of the accused but he still has to be notified take note of that, because
it can be done in the presence of his representative or his counsel so vice versa, if that is not for a light
offense and it is a judgment of conviction it has to be made in the presence of the accused, otherwise the
accused can question the promulgation and remember this is very important because that is the time

where you have to start counting the 15 days period either to file a motion for reconsideration, motion for
new trial or to file an appeal to the higher court ok? But I repeat! The accused has always be notified.
Unlike in civil cases where notice to counsel is a notice to lawyer, in criminal cases that is not. The lawyer
and counsel must always be notified. Ill ask you now, if it is for acquittal? Acquittal siya, must it be
promulgated in the presence of the accused? Parang none in the provision of the law. If that is none in the
provision of the law, that can be promulgated and how do you do that? By recording in the criminal
docket book of the court and sending a copy of the decision and that also proves too even if it is for
conviction when case was tried in absentia diba? You also do that I repeat by recording the decision, also
for conviction ha, even if the accused jumped bail and the case was tried in absentia pwede yan, enter it in
the criminal docket book of the court and then serve a copy or the decision in the last known office of the
accused but trial in absentia if you recall is only allowed when? In constitutional law, when there can be
trial in absentia? Can there be trial in absentia before accused is arraigned? Now it presupposes that the
accused has already been arraigned before the court can actually proceed with a trial in absentia ok? Allow
me to read just a little, in connection with this particular concept pa rin of promulgation my dear
students, I will ask you, there are instances when the accused, he was tried in Basey but he is confined in
another place like foe example in Manila because he is facing another charge, that is possible. In case of
promulgation, what happens? Tried in Basey, decision is due for promulgation but he is confined in
another province say in Manila because he is facing another charge, very expensive to bring the accused in
Basey for purposes of promulgation, rule is very clear, it can still be promulgated by the RTC of that place
where accused is actually confined in fact there are instance where that judge is allowed to accept the
notice of appeal noh? The corresponding notice of appeal. It is allowed by provisions of this particular law
and it even allows the grant of Bail although in cases ,however, when the nature of the offense, after
promulgation, was changed from non bailable to bailable dont file it in the court but you file it in the
Appellate court for example you were for murder but you were only convicted for homicide, promulgation
was made in the court for homicide, can you file a motion before that court which rendered judgment to
allow you to post bail in spite of the pendency of the appeal? The rule is very clear, NO. What you will do
is to file your motion to allow bail to the appellate court where the case now is on appeal.
The presence of the accused is mandatory during promulgation because if he was notified, like
what Ive said notice now can be grant through email, can be done through phone calls and through text
messaging, and he fails to appear during the scheduled promulgation, tell your clients if you become
lawyers, importante yan, because he shall loose his right to avail of whatever remedies given to him by law
for example, notice of appeal, yan ang effect. Other remedies after promulgation particularly of conviction
is notice of appeal or motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. If you did not appear during the
promulgation and your failure to appear is unjustified, the effect is you will lose whatever remedies which
are given to you by law however, you may surrender within the 15 day period and prove tho the court the
justification why you failed to appear during the scheduled promulgation and if that is granted by the
court if the court finds out that your reason is justified, you can now avail of this particular remedies, why
my dear students? Because if this is for conviction within the period of 15 days thereafter, your remedies
would be appeal, motion for reconsideration or new trial. Those are the available remedies within the 15
day period after the promulgation of the decision. But I am talking about conviction because acquittal
cannot be appealed otherwise the accused will be placed in double jeopardy so when I ask you a question
if you were the counsel, what will you do to protect your client? Its either you file an appeal plus the
payment of the corresponding appeal fee, number two, file motion for new trial based on two grounds (1)
irregularities were committed which affected the substantial rights of the accused or (2) newly
discovered evidences and if that is the case, file a motion for new trial. However, if you find that the
appreciation of the judge might not be correct and the application of the facts, the law and the decisions
might have been erroneous you file a motion for reconsideration within the 15 day period after the
promulgation. Very clear and very nice my dear students. Very clear na ha? And that is supposed to be
what would ground during the promulgation of the trial ok?
Can the court modify its judgment? The answer to that, oh! by the way there is a difference
between a motion for new trial or reconsideration to the reopening of a case what we have already
lectured before, the court can reopen a case and that is different from a motion for new trial or a motion

for reconsideration. Later nalang when we get to motion. Yes! The court can modify its judgment upon
motion of the accused before it becomes final or before the appeal is perfected ok? You take note of that.
Except daw when death penalty is imposed, the judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal. So there is a difference here, although like what I have said, we have no more death
penalty. What do you mean by it can be modified before final judgment or before an appeal is perfected?
It simply means that before your appeal was approved by the court. Example, we have 15 day period to file
a notice of appeal after the promulgation of conviction. On the 10 th day you filed a notice of appeal.
Question, can you file a motion to modify the motion, to the accused lang ha not the prosecution because
it will placed the accused in double jeopardy. On the 11 th day the accused file a motion to modify the
judgment. Question, if you were the court will you still grant the same? Ill repeat, notice of appeal was
filed on the 10th day from promulgation. On the 11 th day, the accused, thru counsel, filed a motion to
modify judgment. If you were the court will you grant it? Again, will you grant it? Yo bitches! You better
answer me madafacka! Yes or no? I did not even say whether the court has approved your appeal so if
the court did not approve yet, your notice of appeal is not yet perfected. It is only when the court has
already approved your notice of appeal, where your notice of appeal is already perfected. Ill repeat, the
motion is only for the accused. Prosecution cannot file it otherwise it will place the accused in double
jeopardy. That is the modification of judgment. Very clear.
Diba this is the article were I asked you? The court, even if the charge for murder, tapos, can the
court convict the accused not for murder but for homicide? Pwede? Yes! Because it is necessarily included
in the charge noh? That which is charged and proved, as long as it is necessarily included in the offense
charged can still be proved and can still be conviction. Example lang, you are charged for illegal detention.
Can the court convict you for slight? Yes, because slight illegal detention is covered by serious illegal
detention. Charge is murder but only convicted for homicide. Proper? Yes, because murder necessarily
includes my dear students. How about if the charge is for frustrated homicide and he was only convicted
for serious physical injury? Question, proper? Wrong! Because serious physical injury is not an ingredient
for frustrated homicide. Why? Because in frustrated homicide there is an intent to kill while it is absent in
the crime of serious physical injury. Pwede pa! consummated rape to attempted rape pwede kasi
attempted rape is necessarily included but no frustrated rape remember. Acts of lasciviousness? Pwede
parin. Why? Because both requires lewd design but never unjust vexation. So thats how, diba I asked you
when or what is the concept of necessarily included? That is part of the provisions of this particular rule.
Clear na my dear students? Clear? Ok.

RULE 121
NEW TRIAL AND RECONSIDERATION
Now, in new trial and reconsideration my dear students, that is in rule 120 okay? Ill repeat, this
are some of the remedies available only on the part of the accused to file a motion for new trial or motion
for reconsideration. In fact, it can also be done moto proprio by court but always with the consent of the
accused. Why? Otherwise the accused will be put in double jeopardy. Ill ask you a good question, but the
prosecution can still file at least a motion to I told you earlier that in motion for new trial, in motion for
reconsideration upon motion of the accused or moto proprio and with consent of the accused and
prosecution cannot file a motion like this otherwise accused will be placed in double jeopardy. Question!
Can prosecution still file? Yes! There is one. What about when the court was not able to render judgment
on the civil liability aspect? Pwede! The prosecution can file ONLY for that particular purpose in advert to
ciguro, well, human as we are, ther might be problems later, hopefully not in you noh? Tapos you
rendered a decision tapos there has to be, diba remember automatic na civil liability of 75,000 pesos and
the accused was convicted but no judgment on the civil liability. Can the prosecution file? Yes! That will
not place the accused on double jeopardy because that is only a motion for reconsideration as far as the

civil liability aspect. Yet it can be made within the 15 day period if no civil liability was awarded even if
there were. Ok the rules on motion for new trial and motion for reconsideration are the same but the
grounds are different. Diba I told you, if irregularities are commited in the course of the trial or you were
able to find a newly discovered evidence, your remedy is not reconsideration but the proper remedy is a
motion for new trial. But if your groud is based on the fact that there could have been error in the
appreciation of the court and the application of the applicable jurisprudence, you file there a motion for
reconsideration. There is a difference there my dear students okay. Look at me. Presuming, your motion
for new trial or reconsideration was filed on the 10 th day okay? The motion for reconsideration was denied
by the court and you want now to appeal. How many days do you still have? Five days nalang or you will
be given a fresh period of 15 days? Thats 15 days. Correct! That is the so called Fresh Period Rule. clear?
Okay. Now, what are the requirements my dear students when your ground for new trial is based on a
newly discovered evidence? Sorry, you will ask me, Sir what are the examples of error of law and
irregularities in the conduct of the trial which will warrant your motion for new trial? Do you want to
know my dear students? Okay here is an example. The trial was proceeded without the accused being
assisted by a counsel. Yan! That is one example. You filed a motion to remand the case to the prosecutors
office because of the absence of a preliminary investigation and the offense is punished by imprisonment
of 6 years. Diba I asked you this in your midterm examination? Then the court denied pero clear naman
talaga that the penalty is 6 years and there has to be a preliminary investigation so that can be a ground
for new trial because that is an irregularity committed by the judge. For newly discovered evidence,
QUESTION! The case has been finished. Submitted na talaga. Decision na but it was the only time the
witness recanted and he executes an affidavit of recantation. You file a motion for re trial and you said,
your honor, here is my affidavit of recantation for the private offended party. Kasi if you want to settle the
civil aspect do it now and dont do it when everything has already been presented because the court
cannot ano that anymore. Here is a case, nag recant! But the case has already been decided by the court
but still you have 15 days to file for new trial kasi in montion for new trial you have to file a motion to
allege and you support whatever is stated there. The evidence, affidavits, you have to support that ha. So
the accused supported the motion for recantation of the recanting witness who is an essential witness pa,
the private complainant himself. The court granted it and ordered a new trial. Question, is the court
correct? Is it considered as a newly discovered evidence? Now the rule says, the accused could not with
reasonable diligence and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably
change the judgment. It must be a new ande material evidence which were discovered and the accused
could not have discovered it by reasonable diligence during trial and if introduced would probably change
the judgment. Those are the requirements for newly discovered evidence. Question, is the judge correct in
granting the motion on the ground of the affidavit of the recanting essential witness? Apparently at first
glance it is not a newly discovered evidence. It cannot be considered. But there is one decision by the
Supreme court that if she was the only winess of the prosecution, and then that only witness of the
prosecution made a recantation, the supreme court said that the motion for re trial on that ground is
proper because that shall be considered as a newly discovered evidence. But if you look at the
requirements it will never be considered as a newly discovered evidence. But there is one case where he is
the only witness and his executed recantation, after the decision has been made by the court, but yet the
court still granted and was affirmed by the supreme court. Okay, reconsideration ha error of law or facts
yan ang grounds ha in a judgment where no further proceeding because if differentiated, in new trial a
judjment is actually vacated in order for a new trial. In reconsideration no the judge will stand, the court
will just make some amendments okay. When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors or
irregularities the old proceedings shall be set aside and taken a new. The court will allow the introduction
of new evidence but in reconsideration, it will never be vacated and set aside. The court will only render
decision correcting some laws in the appreciation of the facts. So that winds up new trial and
reconsideration.