Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 121 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

SECTION 1. New trial or reconsideration . At any time before a ju !ment of "on#i"tion be"ome$ final% t&e "ourt may% on motion of t&e a""u$e or at it$ o'n in$tan"e but 'it& t&e "on$ent of t&e a""u$e % !rant a ne' trial or re"on$i eration. (1a) NEW TRIAL Q: What is the effect of the filing of a motion for new trial on the double jeopardy rule? A: An accused who files a motion for new trial WAIVES the protection of double jeopardy, so that if the motion is granted, he can be tried and convicted of the graver offense charged in the complaint or information !"rono vs # S $$ %hil &'() Santos vs %eople, (* %hil $+, Actually, it is li-e an appeal eh . when an accused appeals the judgment against him, he is waiving his right against double jeopardy And it has happened several times in the past where the accused was charged with murder and convicted of homicide /e was not contented When he filed an appeal, he was convicted of murder Sometimes, appeal can give you a worse situation It happened here in 0avao where a lawyer was charged as a principal for falsification of documents that he notari1ed "he judge convicted him of falsification but merely as an accomplice 2inabaan ba3 2ut I thin- the intention of the judge was to allow the lawyer to as- for probation %ero hindi na-untento ang lawyer /e appealed to the 4A 5alo-o na3 5asamot gyud3 "he 4A convicted him as principal And what was worse, the 4A said that since the accused was a lawyer, let a copy of the decision be brought to the S4 for disbarment proceedings 5a disbarred pa3 "hat6s what happens for appealing3 Alright, and ta-e note, at any time before a judgment of conviction become final 5ow this is one provision which you have to compare with 7ule $'+, Section & on 8odification of 9udgment Q: 4ompare and 0istinguish 5ew "rial from 8odification of 9udgment A: Similarity: 2oth may be resorted to before the judgment of conviction becomes final Distinctions: $ In new trial, by the very nature of its purpose and what is to be done, both parties intervene) whereas, in modification of judgment, the court moto propio may act provided the consent of the accused is re;uired) ' In new trial, if the motion is granted, the original judgment is vacated and a new judgement shall be rendered) whereas, in modification of judgment, the integrity of the decision already rendered is unaffected, e<cept for the proposed changes, although the entire decision may have to be rewritten !%eople vs "amayo, =( %hil '+>, 5ow, there is a new section in the 5ew 7ules which created confusion . 7ule $$> Section '* SEC. 2*. Reopening. At any time before finality of t&e ju !ment of "on#i"tion% t&e ju !e may% motu +ro+rio or u+on motion% 'it& &earin! in eit&er "a$e% reo+en t&e +ro"ee in!$ to a#oi a mi$"arria!e of ju$ti"e. T&e +ro"ee in!$ $&all be terminate 'it&in t&irty (,-) ay$ from t&e or er !rantin! it. (n) When do you ma-e the motion for reopening? At anytime before the judgment of conviction becomes final? %areho di ba3 "he language of the ? provisions are identical, motion for: !$, reopening of trial) !', modification of judgment of conviction) and !?, new trial or reconsideration "hat is a new provision So that when I loo-ed at the new 7ules, talagang nalito a-o Ano ba itong reopening of trial /ow is this different from the others? "hat is why, during the seminar in 8en Seng last 5ovember ?+ on the 5ew 7ules, I brought this out, eh

187

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

Would somebody be -ind enough to tell the difference between the three? Everything -asi is done before the judgment of conviction becomes final3 @f course, nobody stood up there to tell me the difference Aaya nalito a-o Bormer Solicitor Ceneral Calve1, when he was here, told me that Dtypographical error man yung 7ule $$> ba, hindi man ganyan ang aming recommendation E Why nga naman will you reopen after judgment of conviction? 7eopenning is done before judgment is rendered Ito naman, paglabas3 5alo-o na3 It created a lot of confusion So if we believe Calve1, the confusion is caused by a typographical error, which according to him is not the language of the 7ules submitted to the S4 and somebody tin-ered with that provision "here is also a rule on 5ew "rial in civil cases under 7ule ?&, you -now the grounds: BA8E, 50E, 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 @therwise, if you do not comply with these re;uisites, what is the name of your motion? %7@ B@78A Pro Forma, meaning the filing of your motion for new trial or reconsideration will 5@" interrupt the period to appeal "hat is the effect "his is now the ;uestion: Q: Is there such a thing as pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration in criminal cases? Where your motion is obviously dilatory? Four grounds are too general, too vague, too ambiguous? 5o 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: "he S4 ruled in the past that the pro forma rule in civil cases 0@ES 5@" apply to criminal cases In criminal cases, a general statement of the grounds for new trial is sufficient !%eople vs 4olmenares, G& @ C ?&$*, Even if you do not go into details because you e<pect 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 "he filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration will always interrupt the running of the period to appeal H: Alright, what are the grounds for new trial? A: Section ': SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial. T&e "ourt $&all !rant a ne' trial on any of t&e follo'in! !roun $. (a) T&at error$ of la' or irre!ularitie$ +reju i"ial to t&e $ub$tantial ri!&t$ of t&e a""u$e &a#e been "ommitte urin! t&e trial/ (b) T&at ne' an material e#i en"e &a$ been i$"o#ere '&i"& t&e a""u$e "oul not 'it& rea$onable ili!en"e &a#e i$"o#ere an +ro u"e at t&e trial an '&i"& if intro u"e an a mitte 'oul +robably "&an!e t&e ju !ment. Q: What are the grounds for a new trial? A: #nder Section, the following are the grounds: 1 !rrors of law" E0am+le. In one case, during the trial, the trial court e<cluded a defense witness from testifying based on an erroneous interpretation of the rules of evidence "he judge dis;ualified him 2ut it turned out that the witness was not dis;ualified "hat is an error of law Bor all you -now, if his testimony will be given, the accused will be ac;uitted "herefore, a new trial should be granted where he should be allowed to testify !%eople vs Estefa, =( %hil $+*, # irregularities pre$udicial to the su%stantial rights of the accused" E0am+le. In one case, the trial court compelled the accused, over his objection, to submit to trial without the assistance of his counsel !%eople vs Enri;ue1, IJ*>?*, 5ovember '=, $>G$, If the accused is convicted because of such irregularity, this is a valid ground for new trial 2esides, why should the judge punish the accused? /e should punish the lawyer

188

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
?

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

Newly disco&ered e&idence" this is similar to civil cases, newly discovered evidence "he re;uisites 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

Q: 8ay a new trial be granted on the ground of loss of stenographic notes? A: 5@ "he loss of stenographic notes after trial is 5@" such an irregularity as would justify a new trial "he remedy of the accused is to have the missing evidence reconstituted !%eople vs 4astelo, IJ$+&&*, Bebruary $(, $>($, "here is a case, the trial is concluded, and the accused is convicted Within the period of $G days from promulgation, here comes the accused filing a motion for new trial on the ground that the prosecution witness has e<ecuted an affidavit recanting his testimony "he prosecution witness, in effect, is saying that what he said during the trial is not true Q: 8ay a new trial be granted on the ground of loss of recantation of prosecution witnesses? A: As a CE5E7AI 7#IE, recantation is 5@" a ground for new trial, otherwise there would never be an end to criminal litigation D"he 4ourt has loo-ed with disfavor upon retraction of testimonies previously given in court "hus, the 4ourt has ruled against the grant of a new trial on the basis of a retraction by a witness "he rationale for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for a monetary consideration 7ecanted testimony is e<ceedingly unreliable "here is always the probability that it may later be repudiated So courts are wary or reluctant to allow a new trial based on retracted testimony E !%eople vs 4lamor, 9uly $, $>>$) %eople vs Soria, @ctober *, $>>(, Q: Is there an EK4E%"I@5? A: FES, when it is made to appear that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction other than the testimony of the recanting witness !# S vs 0acir, '( %hil G+?, When aside from the testimonies of the retracting witness or witnesses there is no other evidence to support a judgment of conviction, a new trial may be granted !%eople vs 4lamor, 9uly $, $>>$, 1O2E3 &s IAC A+ril 4% 1456 7ELD: DIt is conceded that the State has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses under the full control of the fiscal and that the dismissal of criminal cases by the e<ecution of an affidavit of desistance by the complainant is not loo-ed upon with favor /owever, it is also true that an affidavit of desistance may create serious doubts as to the liability of the accused At the very least, it calls for a second hard loo- at the records of the case and the basis for the judgment of conviction 9urisprudence on the effect of desistance notwithstanding, the affidavit should not be peremptorily dismissed as a useless scrap of paper E Sometimes I have seen affidavits of recantation made by the complainant, alam mo -ung anong na-alagay? . '( ha&e lost interest in continuing the case ) %ero tapos na, na-aJtestify na siya And on the basis of that, a new trial was granted 8ali man iyan ba %ara magJnew trial, dapat na sabihin niya * '+ali ang mga sina%i ,o-) If you say that you are not interested, you are not really repudiating what you said "hat is what the S4 emphasi1ed in the $>>= case of 8EO8LE &s 1ARCIA 255 SCRA ,52 91445: 7ELD: D"o warrant a new trial, the affidavit of desistance must constitute a recantation and not a mere withdrawal from the prosecution of the case "he complainantLs affidavit of desistance did not

189

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

constitute a recantation, because she did not deny the truth of her complaint but merely sought to be allowed to withdraw and discontinue the case because she wished to start life anew and live normally again She never absolved or e<culpated the accused In other words, a recantation of a prior statement or testimony must necessarily renounce the said statement or testimony and withdraw it formally and publicly E %arang ganito ba: '.ung sa%i ,o noon na ni/rape niya a,o* di man na tinood %a* pumayag man a,o %a-) Fan, bali-tarin mo lahat ang sinabi mo /indi yung: D ( am not interested* ,apoy na* ayo,o na ) /indi pwede yan, that is not recantation because you are not disowning what you said earlier 5ow we will go to one last point 8RO;LE2. Iet us assume that Sheriff was convicted purely because of the testimony of the complainant, "haddeus 5ow, "haddeus ma-es an affidavit stating that everything he said is not true 8eaning he is really recanting . binabawi niya lahat ng sinabi niya Q: Is this a ground for new trial? A: Bollowing jurisprudence, FES It becomes now an e<ceptional case "here will be a new trial Q: What do you mean new trial? A: We will now restart the case Q: Who will testify? A: Eh di si "haddeus3 . yung complainant, who will be as-ed: 'During the trial this is what you said* what are you saying now0) As he answers, "haddeus must say under oath that he lied before and this is the truthM 1amen-2 Q: After that, can the court say that the accused is now ac;uitted because now "haddeus is telling the truth when before "haddeus was not telling the truth? Is this what will happen? A: "he S4 said 5@ "he only thing that will happen is that a new trial will be granted 2ut this does not mean that the accused shall be ac;uitted When we say new trial, this means that the court should hear the testimony of the complainant again 2#" after testifying, the court may say, '.ou say you were lying %efore and you are telling the truth now* %ut the court does not %elie&e you %ecause as far as the court is concerned* you were telling the truth %efore and you are lying now ) "herefore the conviction stands "hat is possible 2ecause some lawyers believe that if a new trial is granted, sigurado na ac;uitted na ang accused 5@, the S4 never guaranteed that It will only be a ground for new trial without a guarantee whether the decision will be reversed or not 2ut in practice, lutong +acau lahat iyan #sapan nalang iyan between the lawyer and the fiscal tapos -asali pa ang judge "hat is what is happening, I -now that 2ut if you follow the rules, there is no guarantee that if new trial is granted, the accused will be ac;uitted "here is no rule that says that when a witness testifies twice, the court will always believe the latest testimony And the S4 has emphasi1ed that in many cases, one of them is the case of 8EO8LE &s CLA2OR <uly -1% 1441 7ELD: DWhere a witness testifies for the prosecution and retracts his or her testimony and subse;uently 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 E So you apply what you -now about evidence, about credibility, appreciation of evidence D"he 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 subse;uent one be carefully compared, the circumstances under which each given carefully scrutini1ed, the reasons or motives for the change carefully scrutini1ed N in other words, all the e<pedients devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses should be utili1ed to determine which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth E

190

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

@f course, if the court believes that the second testimony is accurate and the witness lied during the first, then ac;uit3 2ut if the court believes that the witness was telling the truth in the first testimony, the conviction stands So ta-e note of that because these are misunderstood concepts eh RECONSIDERATION 5ow, ano naman ang Reconsideration? "he same as in civil cases

SEC. ,. Ground for reconsideration. T&e "ourt $&all !rant re"on$i eration on t&e !roun of error$ of la' or fa"t in t&e ju !ment% '&i"& re=uire$ no furt&er +ro"ee in!$. (,a) SEC. *. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor . T&e motion for ne' trial or re"on$i eration $&all be in 'ritin! an $&all $tate t&e !roun $ on '&i"& it i$ ba$e . If ba$e on a ne'ly> i$"o#ere e#i en"e% t&e motion mu$t be $u++orte by affi a#it$ of 'itne$$e$ by '&om $u"& e#i en"e i$ e0+e"te to be !i#en or by uly aut&enti"ate "o+ie$ of o"ument$ '&i"& are +ro+o$e to be intro u"e in e#i en"e. Noti"e of t&e motion for ne' trial or re"on$i eration $&all be !i#en to t&e +ro$e"utor. (*a) SEC. 6. 3earing on motion. W&ere a motion for ne' trial "all$ for re$olution of any =ue$tion of fa"t% t&e "ourt may &ear e#i en"e t&ereon by affi a#it$ or ot&er'i$e. (6a) Q: Is there an instance when a 8@"I@5 for reconsideration or new trial is %7@/I2I"E0? A: FES . when the case is tried in the 8"4 under the Summary 7ules 2awal man iyan ba3 "hat6s a prohibited motion 5ow you just ta-e note of that #nder Section $>OcP of the 7evised Summary 7ules, a motion for reconsideration or new trial of a final judgment is prohibited Q: @f course, what are the effects of granting the motion for new trial or reconsideration A: Fou have Section (: SEC. ?. !ffects of granting a new trial or reconsideration . T&e effe"t$ of !rantin! a ne' trial or re"on$i eration are t&e follo'in!. (a) W&en a ne' trial i$ !rante on t&e !roun of error$ of la' or irre!ularitie$ "ommitte urin! t&e trial% all t&e +ro"ee in!$ an e#i en"e affe"te t&ereby $&all be $et a$i e an ta@en ane'. T&e "ourt may% in t&e intere$t of ju$ti"e% allo' t&e intro u"tion of a itional e#i en"e. (b) W&en a ne' trial i$ !rante on t&e !roun of ne'ly> i$"o#ere e#i en"e% t&e e#i en"e alrea y a u"e $&all $tan an t&e ne'ly> i$"o#ere an $u"& ot&er e#i en"e a$ t&e "ourt may% in t&e intere$t of ju$ti"e% allo' to be intro u"e $&all be ta@en an "on$i ere to!et&er 'it& t&e e#i en"e alrea y in t&e re"or . (") In all "a$e$% '&en t&e "ourt !rant$ ne' trial or re"on$i eration% t&e ori!inal ju !ment $&all be $et a$i e or #a"ate an a ne' ju !ment ren ere a""or in!ly. (?a) Q: Will there be really a trial de no&o or will there just be a reopening of the trial to introduce the newly discovered evidence? A: #nder paragraph OcP which we already discussed: DIn 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 E Q: Suppose after new trial, the court still finds the accused guilty? A: "here will be another judgment but definitely the original judgment is already set aside When the court grants the motion, wala na iyon3 7egardless of whether the new judgment will be the same or not So with that, we are now through with 7ule $'$

191

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 121 New Trial Or Reconsideration

editor/in/chief: mortmort editors: jay"eebelle balite A j>j torre$ A mi"&ael +eloton A mayin! a ula A je$$amyn a!u$tin A lyle $anto$ A +aul ryan on!@in!"o A ynn !utierreB A maya =uitain A rieBl lo"$in A +atri"@ tabar A marite$$ !onBale$ A mari"el "ul+able A @ennet& ley#a A jenny namo" A fer inan #i o A meli$$a $uareB A ray a $ullano A ru"el "ayetano A ro =uia"&on A &anna& e0amen A myra monte"al#o A !enie $al#aCa A !ra"e $ale$a Q leo !ille$ania A !emma betonio A jenny a=uiatan A mi"&ael +ito Q @aren e leon A elma tormon A ju ee uy A +ao an!ele$ A jet +a$"ua A contri%uting editors: bat&$&eba bal oBa A marlo ma$an!@ay D>>>>>D D E E FE F E E E E EG FF G EE E E EFFFG F E EFEEEEH FE (G DD DD G) G G G I>>I G F >> E F DDDD E S8ACE>JILLER K5. A friend and I were shopping for dresses for her threeJyearJ old girls to wear to a wedding In the shop, another girl staring intently at Sarah and 2ec-y as-ed, DAre those girls twins?E DActually they6re triplets,E I e<plained D"hey have a brother at home E DWow,E she replied D"hey sure loo- li-e twins to me E Source: Reader4s Digest* No&em%er #555

192