SECTION 2, RULE 121 GROUNDS FOR NEW

TRIAL

GROUNDS FOR A NEW TRIAL IN CRIMINAL

CASES
1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights
of the accused have been committed during the trial (errors of
law or irregularities).
2. New and material evidence discovered which the accused
could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted
would probably change the judgment (newly discovered
evidence).
3. Other grounds which the court may determine in the exercise
of its discretion.

ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES
- When the appellate court after thoroughly reviewing the case
and studying its record, finds that the evidence is incomplete
and unsatisfactory, both for the prosecution and for the

defense, in the interest of justice, said evidence should be

supplemented and reinforced not exactly for the benefit of
the defense but mainly to have a sufficient and adequate
basis to intelligently and justly determine the guilt or
innocence of the defendant, and the case should be
remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

MISTAKES OR ERRORS OF COUNSEL IN

CONDUCTING THE CASE, NOT A GROUND FOR
NEW TRIAL
- Mistakes or errors of counsel in the conduct of his case are
not grounds for new trial.
- This rule is the same whether the mistakes are the result of
ignorance, inexperience, or incompetence.
- The incompetence or gross negligence of the accuseds
original counsel be deduced from the latters decision not to
present evidence on behalf the accused. In the absence of
any evidence to support it, that deduction would be nothing
more than unadulterated speculation.

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS GROUND

FOR NEW TRIAL

- Where it turned out that the counsel for the accused is not a
lawyer, the accused is entitled to a new trial. This is so
because an accused person is entitled to be presented by a
member of the bar in a criminal case.

DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS

- In a case, the court noted that the trial judge did not exert
sufficient effort to make available compulsory process and
see to it that accused-appellant was given his day in court,
but was effectively denied his right to counsel, for although
he was provided with one, he could not understand and
communicate with him, concerning his defense such that,
among other things, no memorandum was filed on his
behalf.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE

- WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES BEFORE ANEW TRIAL MAY
BE GRANTED ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE?
a) The evidence was discovered after trial;
b) Such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;

c) The evidence is material, not merely cumulative,

corroborative, or impeaching; and
d) It must go to the merits as ought to produce a different result
if admitted, in other words, it is of such weight that, if
admitted, it will probably change the judgment.

STRICT APPLICATION
CASE: Custodio vs. Sandiganbayan
- The court en banc expressed its 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
caution.

OTHER GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL

The court is left with the discretion to determine, on a case to

case basis, of what would constitute meritorious circumstances
warranting a new trial or re-trial

RECANTATION OF WITNESSES
- What is RECANTATION?
It is the public and formal withdrawal of a witness of his prior
statement. It is not a ground for new trial because it makes a
mockery of the court and would place the investigation of
truth at the mercy of the unscrupulous witness.
--- Moreover, retractions are easy to extort out of witness. In
contrast, their statements are made under oath, in the
presence of judge, and with the opportunity to crossexamine.
- EXCEPTION: When aside from the testimony of the
retracting witness, there is no other evidence to support the
conviction of the accused. In this case, the retraction by the
sole witness creates a doubt in the mind of the judge as to
the guilt of the accused

RECANTATION vs. AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

RECANTATION
A witness who previously gave
a
testimony
subsequently
declares that his statements
were not true.

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
The complainant states that he
did not really intend to institute
the case and that he is no
longer interested in testifying or
prosecuting.
It is a ground for dismissing the
case only if the prosecution
can no longer prove the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable

doubt without the testimony of
the offended party

WHEN NEW TRIAL

RECANTATION

GRANTED

BASED

ON

CASE: PEOPLE vs. LAO WAN SING

- The SC set the standards by which the recantation of a
witness shall be considered as follows:
Although a recanting testimony is often times regarded as
unreliable, especially so where the recantation relied upon
involves a confession of perjury, and motions for new trial
based on subsequent retraction by a witness are not
favorably considered, yet when aside from the testimonies of
the retracting witnesses there is no evidence to support the
judgment of conviction, a new trial may be granted