SECTION2,RULE121

GROUNDSFORNEW
TRIAL

GROUNDS FOR A NEW TRIAL IN CRIMINAL

CASES
1. Errorsoflaworirregularitiesprejudicialtothesubstantialrights
oftheaccusedhavebeencommittedduringthetrial(errorsof
laworirregularities).
2. New and material evidence discovered which the accused
couldnotwithreasonablediligencehavebeendiscoveredand
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted
would probably change the judgment (newly discovered
evidence).
3. Othergroundswhichthecourtmaydetermineintheexerciseof
itsdiscretion.

ERRORSORIRREGULARITIES
Whentheappellatecourtafterthoroughlyreviewingthecase
andstudyingitsrecord,findsthattheevidenceisincomplete
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
remandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrial.

MISTAKES OR ERRORS OF COUNSEL IN

CONDUCTINGTHECASE,NOTAGROUNDFOR
NEWTRIAL
Mistakesorerrorsofcounselintheconductofhiscaseare
notgroundsfornewtrial.
Thisruleisthesamewhetherthemistakesaretheresultof
ignorance,inexperience,orincompetence.
The incompetence or gross negligence of the accuseds
originalcounselbededucedfromthelattersdecisionnotto
present evidence on behalf the accused. In the absence of
any evidence to support it, that deduction would be nothing
morethanunadulteratedspeculation.

VIOLATIONOFRIGHTTOCOUNSELISGROUND
FORNEWTRIAL

 Whereitturnedoutthatthecounselfortheaccusedisnota
lawyer, the accused is entitled to a new trial. This is so
becauseanaccusedpersonisentitledtobepresentedbya
memberofthebarinacriminalcase.

DENIALOFDUEPROCESS
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 accusedappellant 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.

NEWLYDISCOVEREDEVIDENCE
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES BEFORE ANEW TRIAL
MAY BE GRANTED ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY
DISCOVEREDEVIDENCE?
a) Theevidencewasdiscoveredaftertrial
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,orimpeachingand
d) Itmustgotothemeritsasoughttoproduceadifferentresult
if admitted, in other words, it is of such weight that, if
admitted,itwillprobablychangethejudgment.

STRICTAPPLICATION
CASE:Custodiovs.Sandiganbayan
Thecourtenbancexpresseditsreluctancetograntnewtrial
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.

OTHERGROUNDSFORNEWTRIAL
The court is left with the discretion to determine, on a case to
case basis, of what would constitute meritorious circumstances
warrantinganewtrialorretrial

RECANTATIONOFWITNESSES

 WhatisRECANTATION?
Itisthepublicandformalwithdrawalofawitnessofhisprior
statement.Itisnotagroundfornewtrialbecauseitmakesa
mockery of the court and would place the investigation of
truthatthemercyoftheunscrupulouswitness.
Moreover,retractionsareeasytoextortoutofwitness.In
contrast,theirstatementsaremadeunderoath,inthe
presenceofjudge,andwiththeopportunitytocross
examine.
EXCEPTION:Whenasidefromthetestimonyofthe
retractingwitness,thereisnootherevidencetosupportthe
convictionoftheaccused.Inthiscase,theretractionbythe
solewitnesscreatesadoubtinthemindofthejudgeasto
theguiltoftheaccused

RECANTATIONvs.AFFIDAVITOFDESISTANCE
RECANTATION
A witness who previously gave
a
testimony
subsequently
declares that his statements
werenottrue.

AFFIDAVITOFDESISTANCE
The complainant states that he
did not really intend to institute
the case and that he is no
longerinterestedintestifyingor
prosecuting.
Itisagroundfordismissingthe
caseonlyiftheprosecution
cannolongerprovetheguiltof
theaccusedbeyondreasonable
doubt without the testimony of

theoffendedparty

WHEN NEW TRIAL GRANTED BASED ON

RECANTATION
CASE:PEOPLEvs.LAOWANSING
The SC set the standards by which the recantation of a
witnessshallbeconsideredasfollows:
Althougharecantingtestimonyisoftentimesregardedas
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
favorablyconsidered,yetwhenasidefromthetestimoniesof
theretractingwitnessesthereisnoevidencetosupportthe
judgmentofconviction,anewtrialmaybegranted