Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration
1. Senit v. People, G.R. No.
192914, 11 January 2016
a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 assailing the Decision
and the. Resolution of the CA
< Reckless Imprudence resulting to
Multiple Serious Physical Injuries and
Damage to Property.>
2. De Villa v. The Director, New
Bilibid Prisons, G.R. No. 158802,
17 November 2004 <DNA>
< a writ of habeas corpus under Rule
102 of the Rules of Court; two folds-
justify the basis of imprisonment 2nd
grant DV a new trial> <rape of Aileen
Mendoza>
<failed sa letter B>
3. People v. Bongalon, G.R. No.
125025, 23 January 2002
<unlawful sale of (shabu), a
regulated drug, in violation of
Section 15, RA 6425>
4. People v. Licayan, G.R. No.
203961, 29 July 2015
<In the appeal now before the Court,
accused-appellants Licayan and Lara
seek to overturn their conviction on
the basis of the newly discovered
evidence presented during their retrial.
> together with the evidence already in the record.
5. Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
NOs. 168951 & 169000, 17 July
2013 Rule 41?
< Motions for Reconsideration>
6. Salvador v. Chua, G.R. No.
212865, 15 July 2015
<estafa>
A new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available during trial but
was not presented due to its negligence. (did not attend the trial, Senit changed his
residence) Likewise, the purported errors and irregularities committed in the course of the
trial against [the petitioner’s] substantive rights do not exist
Petitioner invoked rule 121, Section 2(a)
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a
competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or
ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the proceedings.
If at all, these errors must be corrected on certiorari or on appeal, in the form and manner
prescribed by law.
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the
following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that
said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that that, if
admitted, it would probably change the judgment.
The accused filed a Notice of Appeal. Thereafter, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration/New Trial to present additional witnesses that included his 4-year old
son, Mark Anthony. The motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that the
additional witnesses he offered to present were available during the trial proper of
the case
Same doctrine sa De Villa re motion for new trial
< Kidnapping for ransom.>
SEC. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. – The effects of granting a new
trial or reconsideration are the following:
(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
Sa UP to na case, Posadas and Dayco
Weird ung ruling
A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
trial court. In a long line of cases, this Court construed the term aggrieved parties
to include the State and the private offended party or complainant.
As early as in the case of Paredes v. Gopengco, it was held that the offended parties
in criminal cases have sufficient interest and personality as "person(s) aggrieved" to
file the special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 65. Apropos thereto is the case cited by petitioner, De la Rosa v. Court of
Appeals, wherein it was categorically stated that the aggrieved parties are the State
and the private offended party or complainant.
7. Flores v. People, G.R. NO.
181354, 27 February 2013
<homicide>
A pro forma motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall not toll the
reglementary period of appeal.
8. Paredes v. Borja (judge), G.R.
No. L-15559, 29 November 1961
<malicious mischief>
1. Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance
Corp., G.R. No. 197582, 29 June
2015
< Rule 45><bp 22>
2. People v. Evangelista, G.R. No.
110898, 20 February 1996
<Frustrated homicide>
<PROBATION>
3. Almero v. People, G.R. No.
188191, 12 March 2014
<Rule 45> reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and multiple
physical injuries
<PROBATION>
4. People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos.
147678-87, 7 July 2004
<10 counts of rape><remanded to
CA>
5. People v. Rocha, G.R. No.
173797, 31 August 2007
< petition for review of the resolution
of CA> <robbery w homicide>
6. Yu v. Samson-Tatad(judge),
G.R. No. 170979, 9 February 2011
<estafa>
As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sec. 2 of Rule 37 and
Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec. 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant
except for those motions which the court may act upon without prejudice to the
rights of the adverse party.23 The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and
must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service.
As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not
affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading."
Acts done by an inferior court in exercise of its discretion will not be interfered with
by an appellate court in the absence of grave abuse.
The rule that after a judgment of conviction has been entered in a criminal case, the
motion filed for the purpose of substituting a plea of guilty by one of not guilty is
equivalent to a petition for reopening the case, and must not only be verified but
accompanied by an affidavit of merit is no longer controlling.
Rule 122 Appeal
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Finality and Immutability of Judgments
a. matters of life, liberty, honor, or property
b. existence of special or compelling circumstances
c. merits of the case
d. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
by the suspension of the rules
e. a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
f. Other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
The perfection of the appeal referred in the law refers to the appeal taken from a
judgment of conviction by the trial court and not that of the appellate court, since
under the law an application for probation is filed with the trial court which can only grant
the same after it shall have convicted and sentenced the defendant, and upon application
by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal.
that parties in criminal cases have sufficient personality as "person(s) aggrieved" to file
the special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 in
line with the underlying spirit of the liberal construction of the rule (same sa Salvador v
Chua)
The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the
crime which led to the judgment of conviction. This was the reason why the Probation
Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments
of conviction – even if the sentence is probationable – for the purpose of securing an
acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid.
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere,
however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost
circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review
by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court
We had not intended to pronounce in Mateo that cases where the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are subject to the mandatory review of this
Court. In Mateo, these cases were grouped together with death penalty cases because,
prior to Mateo, it was this Court which had jurisdiction to directly review reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment and death penalty cases alike. The mode of review, however,
was different. Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment cases were brought before this
Court via a notice of appeal, while death penalty cases were reviewed by this Court on
automatic review
The raison d’être for the "fresh period rule" is to standardize the appeal period provided
in the Rules and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should
be counted. Thus, the 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the filing of a
motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration; litigants today need not concern

7. Macapagal v. People, G.R. No.
193217, 26 February 2014
<estfa; rule 45>
8. Sanico v. People, G.R. No.
198753, 25 March 2015
<Trespassing and theft of minerals>
9. Ramirez v. People, G.R. No.
197832, 2 October 2013
<rule45, estafa>
10. Olarte v. People, G.R. No.
197731, 6 July 2015
<frustrated homicide>
11. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
NOs. 183152-54, 21 January 2015
<murder >
12. People v. Hipona, G.R. NO.
185709, 18 February 2010
<Rape w homicide and robbery>
13. Batistis v. People, G.R. No.
181571, 16 December 2009
<infringement of trademark>
14. Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No.
166995, 13 January 2014
<appeal of an acquittal> <qualified
theft thru falsification of commercial
document>
15. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Piccio, G.R. Nos. 203370 &
215106, 11 April 2016
<libel><who must file the appeal>
themselves with counting the balance of the 15-day period to appeal since the 15-day
period is now counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration or any final order or resolution.
The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order
disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter
through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of
appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the
petition merits an outright dismissal
Direct resort to SCourt is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling
reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this
case.
May issue sa attachment
The failure to file the Memorandum on Appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the
appeal only in civil cases; the same rule does not apply in criminal cases. Section 9(c),
imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal “on the basis of the entire record of the
case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed” upon the submission of the
appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same.
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege. It is not a natural right and is not a part
of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and maybe exercised only in accordance
with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements
of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law
Under Rule 120 there must be surrender and motion for leave to avail of the remedies
against the judgment. These were not complied with. Ultimately the judgment became
final when none of these were made before lapse of period for appeal.
Michael A. Hipona is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with
Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122, and Section 9, Rule 45, of the Rules of Court, the review
on appeal of a decision in a criminal case, wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, is by petition for review on certiorari.(q of
Law only)
Questions of fact, on the other hand, arise when there is an issue regarding the truth or
falsity of the statement of facts. Questions on whether certain pieces of evidence should
be accorded probative value or whether the proofs presented by one party are clear,
convincing and adequate to establish a proposition are issues of fact.
. A petition under Rule 45 brings up for review errors of judgment, while a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 covers errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable
ground under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode
of appeal.
Section 1 of Rule 45 (see notes) must be read in relation to Section 1, Rule 122 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which provides that any party may appeal from a judgment or
final order "unless the accused will thereby be placed in double jeopardy.
However, the rule against double jeopardy is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where
there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2)
Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances
The People of the Philippines are the real party in interest in criminal cases, hence, the
appeal can only be made by them and not the private complainants. The latter can only
file an appeal as regards the civil liability of the case, even without the agreement of the
OSG
16. Dimakuta v. People, G.R. No.
206513, 20 October 2015
<sec 5b Ra 7610 to acts of
lasciviousness>
17. People v. Olivo, G.R. No.
177768, 27 July 2009
<Robbery w Homicide>
<sec 11 rule 122>
18. People v. Dueño, G.R. No. L-
31102, 5 May 1979
<murder>
Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
1. In Re: Azucena L. Garcia, G.R.
No. 141443, 30 August 2000
< three counts of falsification of
public documents>
1. People v. Mateo,
2. Celestial v. People, G.R. No.
214865, 19 August 2015
< qualified theft through falsification
of commercial documents>
3. Ola v. People, G.R. No. 195547,
2 December 2015
< other forms of swindling under
Article 316>
4. Villamor v. People, G.R. No.
172110 and 181804, 1 August 2011
< Rule 124 Sec. 8; Rule 124 Sec. 3>
5. Navarro v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. Nos. 112389-90, 1 August
1994
<sec 8 rule 124> <BP 22>
6. People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R.
No. 186417, 27 July 2011
Probation should not be granted to the accused in the following instances:
1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where the penalty
imposed is within the probationable period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of
appeal; and
2. When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits of his conviction in
issue, even if there is an alternative prayer for the correction of the penalty imposed
by the trial court or for a conviction to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in
the crime in which he was convicted where the penalty is within the probationable
period.
An appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter. < Permejo was not able to identify accused-appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime>
As noted earlier, accused-appellants Felipe Dueno and Sofronio Dueno had
withdrawn their appeals, and the decision of the trial court already became final and
executory as to them. The decision is binding as to the third accused-appellant,
Andresito Belonio, who pursued his appeal.
The writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail,
or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a
judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue
the process, render the judgment, or make the order.
Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court
of its jurisdiction over the cause and the person of the defendant, if corrected at all,
must be corrected on appeal in the form and manner prescribed by law.
Rule 124 Procedure in CA
Fundamental is the rule that notice to counsel is notice to the client.
<Sec 8 rule 124>
Section 4, paragraph 2, Rule 124, of the Rules of Court, petitioner had twenty (20) days
from receipt of herein respondent's brief to file a reply brief to discuss matters raised in
respondent's brief which were not covered in her brief
In Vios Jr.’s case: Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Section 3, Rule
124), the appellant must file his brief within thirty (30) days from receipt by the
appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of this Court that
evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record.// in villamor’s
case: the subsequent filing of her motion for reconsideration of the CA decision way
beyond the reglementary period has rendered the said decision final and executory.
The petition must fail. As Navarro filed only a notice of appeal and not an appellant's
brief, her appeal was correctly dismissed for lack of interest in prosecuting it.
The Court of Appeals was also correct in denying her motion for new trial, although not
simply on the technical ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order.
An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one
not raised by the parties.This was our pronouncement in the 1902 landmark case of U.S. v.
Abijan,65 which is now embodied in Section 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court:
SEC 11. Scope of Judgment. – The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the
judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to
the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case. (Emphasis supplied)

7. People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No.
149723, 27 October 2006
<7610> < sec 14 rule 124>
<CA can determine w/n to grant
bail>
8. People v. Bitanga, G.R. No.
159222, 26 June 2007 < estafa>
The reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial
court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the
whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render
such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the
appellant.
However, when the CA grants a new trial, its disposition of the case may differ,
notwithstanding Sec. 1. 125 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides for
uniformity in appellate criminal procedure between this Court and the CA. Unlike this
Court, the CA may decide questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law. Thus,
when it grants a new trial under Sec. 14, Rule 124, it may either (a) directly receive the
purported newly discovered evidence under Sec. 12, or (b) refer the case to the court of
origin for reception of such evidence under Sec. 15. In either case, it does not relinquish to
the trial court jurisdiction over the case; it retains sufficient authority to resolve incidents
in the case and decide its merits.
The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered
in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit
such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases.
Section 18, Rule 124 thereof, provides:
Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions
of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the
Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases
insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal
cases.