Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 125 Procedure

in the
Supreme Court

Rule 125
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT
SECTION 1. Uniform Procedure. Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or
by law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be
the same as in the Court of Appeals. (1a)
SEC. 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. The procedure for the review
by the Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of Appeals
shall be the same as in civil cases. (2a)
SEC. 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. When the Supreme Court en banc is
equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on whether to acquit
the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached
after re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of lower court shall be reversed and the
accused acquitted. (3a)
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 CA
and you appeal to the SC, what procedure will the SC follow?
A: Under Section 1, Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the
Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals. So there
is no problem, you can apply the previous rule filing of brief, how many copies the same.
Now, lets go to one interesting ISSUE: Can you file a motion for new trial of a criminal case before
the SC on the ground of newly discovered evidence?
In the past, there seems to be conflicting rulings on that issue. Like for example, if you go to the
1965 case of GODUCO VS. CA (14 SCRA 282), the SC ruled that the SC is not authorized to entertain
a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence because of
the doctrine that the SC is not a trier of facts only questions of law are supposed to be raised before
the SC.
However, the Goduco ruling seems to be relaxed in other cases subsequently to the case of Goduco.
In the case of HELMUTH, JR. VS. PEOPLE (112 SCRA 573 [1982]), and in PEOPLE VS. AMPARADO
(156 SCRA 712 [1987]), the SC allowed the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
In 1995, that issue came out again in the case of
CUENCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
250 SCRA 485
HELD: Although in Goduco vs. CA (14 SCRA 282 [1965]), this Court ruled that it is not
authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on
allegedly newly discovered evidence, the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not
abandoned, in subsequent cases like Helmuth, Jr. vs. People and People vs. Amparado.
In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite the
opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted accused concerned on
the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the Court considered as
newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction.
So we follow the later ruling relaxed. And I think that is fair enough for the accused. All the
doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.