rule 121 criminal procedure

RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATIONReported by: MAE D. BORLA

Sec. 1 New trial or reconsideration. – At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.

NEW TRIAL RECONSIDERATIONa. The case is opened again after judgment

for the reception of new evidence and further proceedings

a. The case is not reopened for further proceeding. The court is merely asked to reconsider its findings of fact in order them conformable to the law applicable to the case.

b. Different grounds for Motion for New Trial:i. Errors of lawii. Irregularities prejudicial to the

substantial rights of the accused.iii. Newly discovered evidence.

b. Different grounds for Motion for Reconsideration:i. Errors of lawii. Errors of fact

Period to file Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Before a conviction becomes final – within fifteen (15) days from its promulgation or notice.

Who may file

a. On motion of the accusedb. Initiated by the court with consent of the accused

- The requisite consent of the accused to such motion for reconsideration or modification is intended to protect the latter from having to defend himself anew for more serious offenses and penalties which the prosecution or the court may have overlooked. (People vs. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003)

Double Jeopardy cannot be invoked

When the accused himself files or consents to the filing of a motion for reconsideration or modification, double jeopardy cannot be invoked because the accused waived his right not to be placed therein by filing such motion. His motion gives the court an opportunity to rectify its errors or to reevaluate its assessment of facts and conclusions of law and make them conformable with the statute applicable to the case in the new judgment it has to render. (People vs. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003)

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 produced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

a. As to errors of law or irregularities

- Irregularities must be with such seriousness as to affect prejudicially the substantial rights of the accused during trial.

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;

   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.

General Rule: Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor an irregularity.

Exception: When the incompetency of the counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his defense and where the error of the counsel is serious.

b. As to newly discovered evidence

Requisites:

1. The evidence was discovered after trial;2. Such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at trial even with the

exercise of reasonable diligence;3. The evidence is material not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and4. It must go to the merits as ought to produce a different result if admitted.

Strict application of the requisites

In Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, the court en banc expressed their reluctance to grant new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence for it is presumed that the moving party had ample opportunity to prepare his case carefully and to secure all the evidence necessary before the trial – such motions are treated with great reluctance.

The “BERRY Rule”

The Supreme Court of Georgia held:

“Applications for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence, are not favoured by the Courts. x x x x Upon the following points there seems to be a pretty general concurrence of authority, viz., that it is incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, to satisfy the Court, 1st. That the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial. 2d. That it was not owing to the want of diligence that it did not come sooner. 3d. That it is so material that it would produce a different verdict, if the new trial were granted. 4th. That it is not cumulative only – viz., speaking to facts, in relation to which there was evidence on the trial. 5th. That the affidavit of the witness himself should be produced, or its absence accounted for. And 6th, a new trial will not be granted, if the only object of the testimony is to impeach the character or credit of a witness.

Burden of Proof

The applicant for new trial has the burden of proof of showing that the new evidence he seeks to present has complied with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.

Threshold Question

“Whether or not the proferred evidence is in fact a newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence.”

Aspects:

1. Temporal one – when the evidence discovered2. Predictive one – when should or could it have been discovered; the requirement of

due diligence has relevance

What is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to knowledge of the party no submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.

Concept of due diligence – must have both a time component and a good faith component

Grant of New Trial Based on Recantation of Witness

Recantation – to recant a prior statement is to renounce and withdraw it formally and publicly

General Rule: Recantations are hardly given much weight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial.

Exception: When there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction other that the testimony of a witness or witnesses who are shown to have made contradictory statements as to material facts under which circumstances the court maybe led to a different conclusion so that a new trial or a reversal of the judgment may be called for.

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.

Grounds for a motion for reconsideration:

a. Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further proceedings; orb. Errors of fact in the judgment which requires no further proceedings.

As errors of law in the judgment do not affect or invalidate the whole proceeding prior to the judgment, but only the judgment itself, to correct such errors no new trial is required but only a reconsideration of the original and rendition of a new judgment, without necessity of granting new trial. (People vs. Enriquez and Salud, G.R. No. L-4934, November 28, 1951)

Sec. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. – The motion for new trial or reconsideration shall state the grounds in which it is based. If based on 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.

Necessity of Notice of Hearing – the motion must be accompanied with a notice of hearing without it would render the motion a mere scrap of paper

Exception: The rule may, however, be relaxed in certain cases where the rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Who should be notified?

Notice should be given to the prosecutor.

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.

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 trial 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.

Effects of Granting a New Trial or Reconsideration

Ground Effect The Court may:Errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial

All proceedings and evidence affected shall be set aside and taken anew.

If error or irregularity goes into the jurisdiction, the entire proceeding is void and must be set aside.

Allow introduction of additional evidence in the interest of justice.

Newly-discovered evidence

Evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other evidence shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already in record.

Allow introduction of other such evidence in the interest of justice.

No Double Jeopardy

The effect of the granting of a new trial is not to acquit the accused of the crime of which the judgment finds him guilty, but precisely, to set aside said judgment so that the case may be tried de novo as if no trial had been had before, for the purpose of rendering a judgement in accordance with the law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial.

Effect of Denial of Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration

It is tThe denial of the motion for reconsideration that constituted the final order which finally disposed of the issued involved in the case.

Remedy if there is Grave Abuse of Discretion in the Grant of Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration

A petition for certiorari or prohibition. Otherwise, the prosecution may no longer have opportunity to question the order if accused is acquitted after a new trial is conducted (because there will be double jeopardy). [Luciano v. Estrella (1970)]

Application of the “Neypes Doctrine”

The “Neypes Doctrine” provides that a party may appeal for a “fresh-period” of 15 days from the receipt or notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial.

In the case of Judith Yu vs. Judge Samson-Tatad (G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011), it was held that the “fresh period” rule previously laid down in Neypes vs. CA, shall likewise be applicable to criminal cases for the following reasons:

a. Section 39 of B.P. Blg. No. 129, the substantive law on which the Rules of Court is based, does not distinguish between a civil and criminal case in setting the period to appeal at 15 days from the “notice of the final order” appealed from. It categorically states that “[t]he period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment or decision appealed from.” Ube lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we (this Court) also ought not to recognize any distinction.

b. The provisions of Section 3 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, though differently worded, mean exactly the same. There is no substantial difference between the two provisions in so far as legal results are concerned - the appeal period stops running upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration. It was the situation that Neypes addressed in the civil case. No reason exists why this situation in criminal cases cannot be similarly addressed.