Nature and Timing
A new trial or reconsideration under Rule 121 is a post-judgment remedy in the same criminal case and in the court that rendered a judgment of conviction. It is available only before the conviction becomes final, because finality terminates the court's ordinary power to change the judgment.
The remedy principally belongs to the accused. The court may grant a new trial or reconsideration on motion of the accused, or on its own initiative with the accused's consent, because reopening a criminal conviction affects the accused's choice between immediate review, further proceedings, or acceptance of the judgment.
A timely motion prevents the judgment from becoming final while the motion is unresolved and interrupts the period for appeal. If the motion is denied, the remaining period to appeal runs from notice of the denial; if the motion is granted and a new judgment is later rendered, the usual remedies run from the promulgation or notice of that new judgment.
Finality may arise by lapse of the period to appeal, waiver of appeal, commencement of service of sentence, or other acts that make the conviction final under the rules. An accused convicted in absentia who fails to appear without justifiable cause must first observe the rules on surrender and available remedies, because loss of remedies may attach when the accused does not submit to the court within the required period.
A judgment of acquittal is treated differently. Since an acquittal on the merits is immediately final as to the criminal aspect, the prosecution cannot use a motion for reconsideration to obtain another review of the accused's guilt; a contrary result would collide with double jeopardy. Only proceedings that are void for want of jurisdiction or denial of due process fall outside that ordinary finality principle.
New Trial and Reconsideration Distinguished
| Point of comparison | New trial | Reconsideration |
|---|---|---|
| Object | Reopens the case to correct trial errors or receive material evidence not previously available despite diligence. | Asks the court to reexamine the judgment on the existing record. |
| Need for further proceedings | Requires retaking affected proceedings, receiving newly discovered evidence, or allowing additional evidence when justice requires. | Requires no further trial proceedings and is resolved from the record, pleadings, and judgment. |
| Usual focus | Defects in the trial process or evidence discovered after trial. | Errors of law or fact in the judgment itself. |
| Result if granted | The relevant evidence is heard or reheard, then the court renders a new judgment on the evidence properly before it. | The court sets aside the questioned judgment and renders a new judgment. |
Form, Notice, and Hearing
The motion must be in writing, specify the relied-upon ground, and be served on the prosecutor. A vague assertion that the judgment is contrary to law or evidence does not properly present the specific matter the court must resolve.
When the ground is newly discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by the affidavits of the witnesses by whom the evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated copies of documents that the accused seeks to present. The purpose is to show the existence, substance, admissibility, and materiality of the proposed evidence before the judgment is disturbed.
The motion is heard on notice. The court may receive affidavits, documents, testimony, or other competent proof when the ground depends on facts outside the existing record. If the asserted error appears on the face of the proceedings or judgment, the court may resolve it from the record and the parties' submissions.
A motion that is pro forma, unsupported where support is required, filed after finality, or directed to matters that could not legally change the judgment does not preserve the remedy. Courts examine substance over label; a motion called reconsideration but asking for reception of additional evidence is, to that extent, a request for new trial.
Grounds for New Trial
A new trial may be granted on either of two grounds: errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during trial, or newly discovered material evidence that satisfies the requisites of the rule.
Errors of Law or Irregularities
This ground addresses defects occurring during trial that impaired the fairness or reliability of the conviction. The error or irregularity must be prejudicial to substantial rights; harmless defects, immaterial deviations, or objections not seasonably and properly raised ordinarily do not justify starting any part of the case again.
An error of law may involve an erroneous ruling on a legal matter affecting the trial, such as improper exclusion of material defense evidence, improper admission of seriously prejudicial evidence, denial of meaningful cross-examination, or misapplication of procedural rights that affected the presentation of the defense. An irregularity may involve a procedural occurrence inconsistent with the orderly conduct of a criminal trial, such as a denial of counsel at a critical stage, a substantial defect in notice, or prejudicial misconduct affecting the court's fact-finding.
The controlling inquiry is not whether the trial was perfect, but whether the accused was deprived of a substantial right in a manner reasonably capable of affecting the judgment. If the unaffected evidence independently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court may deny a new trial despite an identified error.
When a new trial is granted on this ground, the remedy is limited to the portion tainted by the error or irregularity. Proceedings and evidence not affected remain standing, while affected proceedings are set aside and taken anew; the court may also allow additional evidence when necessary to serve justice.
Newly Discovered Evidence
Newly discovered evidence is evidence discovered after trial, which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced during trial, and which is so material that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment.
- Discovered after trial. The evidence must not have been known to the accused or counsel during trial in a way that made its production reasonably possible.
- Not discoverable with reasonable diligence. The accused must show genuine efforts to locate, obtain, or present the evidence before judgment; neglect, tactical withholding, or failure to investigate does not convert old evidence into newly discovered evidence.
- Material and competent. The evidence must bear directly on guilt, the existence of an element, the credibility of essential prosecution proof, a recognized defense, or another matter capable of changing the result.
- Probably changes the judgment. The standard is probability, not mere possibility; the new evidence must be strong enough, when considered with the evidence already taken, to likely produce a different judgment.
Evidence that is merely cumulative generally does not warrant a new trial, because it adds more of the same proof already considered. Evidence offered only to impeach a witness is also usually insufficient, unless the witness's testimony was indispensable and the impeachment is so decisive that it would probably alter the finding of guilt.
Newly available evidence is not automatically newly discovered evidence. If a witness was known during trial but refused, failed, or was not asked to testify, the accused must explain why the testimony could not have been produced despite reasonable diligence and why the testimony is materially different from proof already offered.
Recantations are examined with caution because they may be influenced by pressure, remorse, compromise, or later fabrication. A recantation may justify a new trial only when it is credible, material, not merely impeaching in a minor sense, and likely to change the judgment when tested against the entire record.
When new trial is granted on this ground, the evidence already taken remains part of the case. The court receives the newly discovered evidence and may admit other evidence in the interest of justice, including evidence that explains, supplements, or rebuts the new matter.
Grounds for Reconsideration
Reconsideration is proper when the judgment contains an error of law or fact that can be corrected without reopening the trial. It is directed against the judgment's conclusions, appreciation of evidence, findings on the elements of the offense, penalty, modifying circumstances, civil liability, or other matters resolved from the record.
An error of law in the judgment may include applying the wrong offense, imposing an unauthorized penalty, overlooking a legal defense established by the record, misapplying rules on criminal liability, or convicting despite a missing statutory element. An error of fact may include a material misreading of testimony, reliance on a finding contradicted by the record, or failure to consider evidence that creates reasonable doubt.
Reconsideration is not the proper vehicle for presenting evidence that was not offered during trial. If correction requires reception of new evidence or retaking of proceedings, the remedy sought is a new trial and must satisfy the corresponding requisites.
When reconsideration is granted, the court sets aside the original judgment and renders a new judgment. The new judgment may acquit the accused, modify the conviction, correct the penalty, adjust civil liability, or otherwise conform the judgment to the law and the evidence already of record.
Effect of Granting the Motion
| Ground granted | Effect on prior proceedings | Further action by the court |
|---|---|---|
| Errors of law or irregularities | Only proceedings and evidence affected by the error or irregularity are set aside; unaffected portions remain valid. | The affected matters are taken anew, additional evidence may be allowed, and a new judgment is rendered. |
| Newly discovered evidence | Evidence already adduced remains in the record. | The newly discovered evidence, and other evidence allowed in the interest of justice, are received and considered with the old record before a new judgment is rendered. |
| Reconsideration | No trial proceedings are retaken because the correction is based on the existing record. | The judgment is set aside and replaced by a new judgment resolving the errors found. |
The grant of a new trial does not erase the whole case unless the order necessarily does so. The rule preserves valid portions of the record to avoid useless repetition while protecting the accused from a conviction affected by substantial error or incomplete material evidence.
The original conviction loses operative effect to the extent the court sets it aside. If the new judgment is one of acquittal, the accused is discharged from criminal liability for the offense charged, subject to the separate rules on civil liability when applicable. If the new judgment is again a conviction, it is subject to the ordinary rules on finality and appeal.
Effect of Denial
Denial leaves the judgment of conviction in force. The accused may still appeal if the period to appeal, as interrupted by the timely motion, has not expired. The denial itself is ordinarily reviewed together with the appeal from the conviction, because it is connected with the validity of the judgment and the proceedings leading to it.
A denial of new trial based on newly discovered evidence is generally reviewed for grave abuse of discretion or manifest error in evaluating the requisites, because the trial court directly assesses whether the proposed evidence is real, material, admissible, and probably outcome-changing. A denial of reconsideration turns on whether the judgment correctly applied the law and reasonably appreciated the evidence of record.
Relation to Appeal and Other Trial Remedies
Rule 121 is not a substitute for appeal, although both remedies may address legal or factual error. A motion for new trial or reconsideration asks the trial court to correct its own judgment before finality; an appeal asks a higher court to review the conviction after the proper appellate step is taken.
The accused is not always required to seek new trial or reconsideration before appealing. However, a ground depending on facts outside the record, especially newly discovered evidence, must first be presented to the trial court through the proper motion because an appellate court ordinarily reviews the record made below.
Rule 121 also differs from reopening of trial before judgment. Reopening occurs before judgment is rendered and allows additional evidence to complete the record; new trial occurs after a judgment of conviction and requires the specific grounds and consequences provided by Rule 121.
Once appeal has been perfected and jurisdiction has shifted in accordance with the rules, correction of the conviction ordinarily proceeds through appellate remedies rather than a Rule 121 motion in the trial court. The timing of the motion is therefore essential: it must be filed while the judgment of conviction remains under the trial court's control and before finality attaches.
Operational Rules to Retain
- A motion for new trial asks for further proceedings; a motion for reconsideration asks for a new judgment on the existing record.
- The court may act on its own initiative only with the accused's consent, because the remedy affects the accused's procedural choices after conviction.
- Errors of law or irregularities justify new trial only when they prejudice substantial rights, not when they are harmless or immaterial.
- Newly discovered evidence must satisfy discovery after trial, due diligence, materiality, competence, and probability of changing the judgment.
- Affidavits or authenticated documents are essential when the motion relies on evidence outside the trial record.
- Reconsideration is confined to errors of law or fact in the judgment and does not permit the accused to introduce evidence that should have been offered at trial.
- Grant of new trial preserves unaffected proceedings and evidence; grant of reconsideration replaces the judgment without reopening the evidence.
- Timely filing interrupts the period to appeal; denial starts the remaining period running from notice of the order.
- The prosecution may oppose the accused's motion but may not use Rule 121 to relitigate an acquittal on the merits.