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

check for errors>

Rule 125 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

Rule 125 Procedure in the Supreme Court

SECTION 1. Uniform Procedure. Unless otherwise pro i!e! "# the Constitution or "# l$w% the pro&e!ure in the Supre'e Court in ori(in$l $n! in $ppe$le! &$ses sh$ll "e the s$'e $s in the Court o) *ppe$ls. +1$, SEC. 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. The pro&e!ure )or the re iew "# the Supre'e Court o) !e&isions in &ri'in$l &$ses ren!ere! "# the Court o) *ppe$ls sh$ll "e the s$'e $s in &i il &$ses. +2$, SEC. -. Decision if opinion is equally divided. .hen the Supre'e Court en banc is e/u$ll# !i i!e! in opinion or the ne&ess$r# '$0orit# &$nnot "e h$! on whether to $&/uit the $ppell$nt% the &$se sh$ll $($in "e !eli"er$te! upon $n! i) no !e&ision is re$&he! $)ter re1!eli"er$tion% the 0u!('ent o) &on i&tion o) lower &ourt sh$ll "e re erse! $n! the $&&use! $&/uitte!. +-$, Q: When the penalty imposed by the RTC is perpetua for example, and since the appeal is direct to the Supreme Court, then what procedure will the SC follow? Or when the case was decided by the C and you appeal to the SC, what procedure will the SC follow? : !nder Section ", Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the upreme Court in ori!inal and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals." So there is no problem, you can apply the pre#ious rule $ filin% of brief, how many copies $ the same& 'ow, let(s %o to one interestin% )SS!*: Can you file a motion for new trial of a criminal case before the SC on the %round of newly disco#ered e#idence? )n the past, there seems to be conflictin% rulin%s on that issue& +i,e for example, if you %o to the "-./ case of 0O1!CO 2S& C 3"4 SCR 5657, the SC ruled that the SC is not authori8ed to entertain a motion for reconsideration and9or new trial on the %round of newly disco#ered e#idence because of the doctrine that the SC is not a trier of facts $ only :uestions of law are supposed to be raised before the SC& ;owe#er, the #oduco rulin% seems to be relaxed in other cases subse:uently to the case of #oduco& )n the case of ;*+<!T;, =R& 2S& >*O>+* 3""5 SCR /?@ A"-65B7, and in >*O>+* 2S& <> R 1O 3"/. SCR ?"5 A"-6?B7, the SC allowed the motion for new trial based on newly disco#ered e#idence& )n "--/, that issue came out a%ain in the case of CUENC* vs. COURT O2 *PPE*3S 254 SCR* 565 HE3D: lthou%h in C#oduco vs. CA" 3"4 SCR 565 A"-./B7, this Court ruled that it is not authori8ed to entertain a motion for reconsideration and9or new trial predicated on alle%edly newly disco#ered e#idence, the rule now appears to ha#e been relaxed, if not abandoned, in subse:uent cases li,e C$elmuth, %r. vs. People" and CPeople vs. Amparado&D C)n both cases, the Court, optin% to brush aside technicalities and despite the opposition of the Solicitor 0eneral, %ranted new trial to the con#icted accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affida#its of persons which the Court considered as newly disco#ered and probably sufficient e#idence to re#erse the Eud%ment of con#iction&D So we follow the later rulin% $ rela&ed& nd ) thin, that is fair enou%h for the accused& ll the doubts should be resol#ed in fa#or of the accused&

212