RULE 121 NEW TRIAL / MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PROBLEM 1

Clyde together with his brother Mario and neighbor Mel were charged of homicide
against Juho Benjamin. Upon arraignment (3) pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. The prosecution presented its witnesses, and testified that Benjamin was
stabbed (4) times by Mario causing his immediate death. The defense version,
presented an alibi, during the incident they were sleeping and since, it was late in
the evening the witnesses may have mistakenly identified them as the perpetuators.
RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused and such decision became final
and executory.
The accused-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that there
is newly discovered evidence which is the extra-judicial confession of Mel being
the sole perpetuator the killing of Benjamin. In his confession, nag-iinuman
kaming apat, nang maubos ang 2 bote umuwi na ang magkapatid ng bigla nalang
niyang(Benjamin) binasag ang boteng wala ng laman sa ulo ko at tumawa,
nagdilim ang aking pamingin dahilan upang siya ay aking sinaksak.

A. WILL THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PROSPER? NO.

suggested answers:
1.) RULE 121, SEC 1 RULES OF COURT the motion for new trial or
reconsideration must be filed before the judgment of conviction becomes final and
executory.
In the present situation, the RTC has rendered its Decision with
finality before the accused-appellants filed the motion for reconsideration.
2.) TADEJA vs. People the motion for new trial or reconsideration will not
prosper on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Newly discovered evidence
should be understood, as those evidences discovered only after trial, which could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
impeaching, and is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if
admitted
In the present situation, the most important requisite which is
that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence was not met by Mels confession. He
participated during the trial before the RTC and even gave his testimony as a
defense.
B. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE?
a) is discovered only after trial
b) could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence
c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching
d) is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted

PROBLEM 2

Marikina Police was task to conduct a buy-bust operation. The Marikina PD prior
to such buy-bust operation was informed by a confidential trusted informant of a
drug den and a certain Andrei was using and selling marijuana, just (2) blocks
away from a high-end club also in Marikina.
During the buy-bust operation PO3 Amparo was hiding 4 meters away from the
said building and other officers where in front the high-end club. PO1 Dela Cruz as
poseur-buyer entered the said building and at the place he saw 10 unidentified
persons smoking something; the smell of marijuana prevails. Upon asking who is
Andrei (1) of them stand and fled immediately outside the building. Upon,
reaching outside PO1 Dela Cruz immediately informed the identity of Andrei to
the other team. Suddenly, a riot ensued in the scene and commotion was such a
mess that there was throwing cigarettes, bottles, liquors and cups. Fortunately,
Andrei was caught and there in his pocket is a cigarette alleged to be with
marijuanas substance.
Andrei was convicted of illegal possession prohibited drugs.
He then filed a motion to conduct new trial on the ground that of his presumption
of innocence since at the time he was caught a riot ensued and such cigarette might
just happened to be inserted in his pocket since he was wearing loose shorts.
Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offense charged when it
sole witness was PO3 Amparo because PO1Dela Cruz suffered heart attack and to
cause his death.

A. WILL THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PROSPER? YES.

suggested answer:
1. RULE 121 SEC. 2 RULES OF COURT GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL.
a) Errors of law have been committed during the trial;
b) That the irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused have been committed during the trial or
 c) that new and material evidence has been discovered
In the present situation, the right to be presumed innocent is a
substantial right guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, new trial should be
granted and the case is remand to the original court for further proceedings.

B. WHAT IF THE RIOT NEVER ENSUED AND ANDREI HAS STILL IN

HIS POCKET THE CIGARETTE, WILL MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION STILL PROSPER? NO.
suggested answer:
1.) Contention of reasonable doubt and insofar as to the presumption of innocence
is untenable.

Doctrine of Inflagrante Delicto

- a lawful arrest, when in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime.
In the present situation, the Marikina PD conducted a buy-bust
operation through a tip of a confidential trusted informant that there is a drug den
in the area and that a certain Andrei was selling marijuana. Moreover, it was
evident that upon the entry of PO1 Dela Cruz supposed poseur-buyer, of the said
place, he stumble upon men who is smoking and such marijuana smell prevails or
using marijuana along with the others is actually committing a crime in the
presence of PO1 Dela Cruz and such running away was incident to a lawful arrest.

PROBLEM 3

Jacob was convicted by the RTC of illegal possession and sale of prohibited drugs
violating sec. 5 and sec. 11 of R.A 9615(DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT).
Prosecution was able to present its lone witness PO2 De Leon one of the members
who conducted the buy-bust operation leading to the arrest of the accused. He
testified that it was their confidential agent who purchased the shabu from accused-
appellant and that he only retrieved it from said informant. He further testified that
he marked the retrieved sachet of shabu together with the two other sachets of
shabu that were allegedly seized from the accused.
He then filed motion for reconsideration on the ground that prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the offense charged against him because he claims
that the prosecution failed to adopt required procedure by Section 21, Article II,
RA. No. 9165, on the chain of custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or
surrendered dangerous drugs. RTC denied the motion for reconsideration and CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC.
A. DECIDE THE CASE.
suggested answer:
CA is right in affirming the decision of the RTC.

RULE 121 SEC. 2 RULES OF COURT GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL /

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
a) Errors of law have been committed during the trial;
b) That the irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused have been committed during the trial or
c) that new and material evidence has been discovered
In the present situation, the ground raised by the accused is not one of
those enumerated. Hence, the proper remedy should be notice of appeal.

B. IF THE ACCUSED DID RATHER FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL,

WHERTHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN
OF PROVING JACOBS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
THE CRIME CHARGED.

suggested answer: NO.

- People vs Lorenzo
that the elements of possession or sale must be present, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court
as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that
needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

In the present situation, there was no moral certainty that the alleged
shabu was truly of the accused. The prosecution failed to established proof beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused of the offense charged because the
witness was not really certain when and where the markings has been done nor
who had specifically received and had custody of the specimens ( as required of
chain of custody or procedure of R.A 9615).