REYNANTE TADEJA v.

PEOPLE

Facts:
 The incident happened while prosecution witnesses Elena and Jacinta were watching a public dance during the
celebration of the annual fiesta of Barangay Talabaan Occidental Mindoro.
 It was then that they witnessed Ruben (Elena's brother and Jacinta's uncle) being hacked to death by the brothers
Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand (petitioners), and petitioners' first cousin Plaridel
 Petitioners alleged that Ruben and his sons, Russell and Robenson Bernardo, went to the barangay plaza shortly
after Rusell had been twice prevented by barangay tanods from entering the dance hall due to his drunken state
and inappropriate attire (no upper garment). Ruben was brandishing a knife and cursing at the crowd. The
Bernardos challenged Reynante, who was then waiting for his children and sisters still inside the dance hall.
 Reynante's brothers testified that they were together at their mother's house at the time.
 Police Officer 3 Ronaldo Flores went to the hospital to question Reynante. The latter narrated how he was stabbed
by the Bernardos. The inquiry was interrupted when Ruben arrived at the emergency room of the hospital in
serious condition. He later died of "hypovolemic shock secondary to acute blood loss" due to multiple stab wounds
and a hacking wound.
 An Information for homicide for the death of Ruben was filed against Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, Ferdinand, and
Plaridel. (Criminal Case No. Z-814)
 Meanwhile, Reynante filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Russell and Robenson (Criminal Case No.
Z-815)
 Criminal Case Nos. Z-814 and Z-815 were tried jointly
 The RTC issued a Decision in Criminal Case No. Z-814 finding Reynante, Ferdinand, Plaridel, Ricardo and Ricky
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The trial court sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from 6 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
 the RTC acquitted Russell and Robenson of frustrated homicide
 Except for Plaridel, who absconded, all the other accused appealed to the Court of Appeals
 the CA issued a Decision affirming the findings and Decision of the RTC
o The CA held that although the prosecution witnesses were relatives of the victim, they had no evil motive
to testify falsely or to concoct a story against petitioners. While three of the petitioners claimed to have
been asleep in their mother's house during the incident, the place was only about one kilometer away
and may be reached in twenty (20) minutes by foot or five (5) minutes by tricycle. Thus, it was not
physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
o The CA also found that conspiracy was properly appreciated by the RTC on the basis of sufficient evidence.
It did not give credence to the apparently conflicting testimonies of Reynante, Plaridel and Ricky regarding
what happened at the time of the incident.
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration and submitted the transcripts of the testimonies of 3 witnesses. Petitioners
believed their testimonies could debunk the main basis of the RTC Decision
 CA denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that nothing in the transcripts provided would affect the
positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses Elena and Jacinta.
 Petitioners then filed with this Court a Petition for Reviewunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
o Petitioners stressed that the testimonies of Elena and Jacinta were not credible since, among other
objections, these were given nearly a year after the incident; and Jacinta never executed a statement
immediately thereafter to aid her later recollection.
 The OSG countered that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in another, depending
on the corroborative evidence and probabilities of the case. Thus, even if the narration of Regina was true, "the
same cannot pose a legal obstacle to the finding of the court a quo in regard to petitioners' direct and actual
 participation in the killing of Ruben Bernardo as the court a quo has the discretion to believe or not to believe a
witness' testimony."
 This Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the CA.
o While petitioners were correct in asserting that the totality of the evidence in Criminal Case Nos. Z-814
and Z-815 should have been considered and given due weight, the testimonies of Leticia, Regina and
Eduardo would not have altered the judgment of conviction by the RTC
o Contrary to petitioners' argument, blood relationship may even fortify credibility, because it would be
unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse a person other than the actual culprit.
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration
 The court we denied the motion with finality.
 petitioners filed a Motion with Leave of Court to Vacate Judgment, invoking the power of the Supreme Court to
suspend its own rules for the purpose of substantial justice and to remand the case to the RTC for further reception
of evidence
 Later, petitioners filed a Supplemental Motion to Motion with Leave of Court to Vacate Judgment Due to
Supervening Event alleging that the Mamburao Municipal Police Force of Occidental Mindoro finally arrested
Plaridel
 Also attached was a statement executed by Plaridel admitting therein that he had killed Ruben
 With the arrest of Plaridel and his account of what happened, petitioners argued that the situation called for the
application of the rules on newly discovered evidence, which provided grounds for a new trial. Since the statement
of Plaridel was obtained only after his arrest, it was not produced or presented during the trial and even during
the pendency of the appeal.
 Petitioners then reiterated their prayer that the judgment of conviction meted out to them be vacated and the
entire records of the criminal case remanded to the RTC for the conduct of a new trial.
 The court treated the motion of petitioners as a second motion for reconsideration and denied it on the ground
that it was a prohibited pleading under the Rules
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration
o They argued that their motion to vacate judgment could not be considered as a second motion for
reconsideration, because the relief prayed for was different from that which had already been passed
upon for review. Instead, the motion prayed for the reopening of the case and its remand to the RTC for
a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence and supervening event.
 The court denied the motion of petitioners with finality for lack of merit.
 In a letter addressed to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Ferdinand prayed for the reopening of the case on the
basis of the confession of Plaridel. The court required the OSG to file its comment thereon: the OSG manifested
that it was not posing any objection to the reopening of the case.
 Ferdinand then filed an Urgent Manifestation and/or Motion to Suspend or Hold in Abeyance the Execution of the
Decision Pending Resolution
 The court denied the motion to suspend the execution of our Decision, on the ground that there was no legal basis
to justify the reopening of the case.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which we denied with finality for lack of merit, with a statement
that no further pleading or motion shall be entertained in the case.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Review by En Banc,
which we denied on the grounds that it was a prohibited pleading, and that the Court En Banc is not an appellate
court to which decisions/resolutions of a Division may be appealed.
 A letter sent by Ferdinand and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Rules with Prayer to Declare the Proceedings
Below as a Mistrial and/or to Grant Petitioners a New Trial Due to Newly Discovered Evidence were ordered
expunged from the records
 Also expunged were another letter from Ferdinand and various pleadings filed by petitioners, on the ground that
entry of judgment had already been made
  In a letter addressed to Chief Justice Renato Corona, Ferdinand reiterated the request for the reopening of the
case. Petitioners later filed a Plea for Alteration, Modification and/or Reversal of Resolutions in the Sublime
Interest of Justice, Equity and Fair Play with Leave of Court

Issues: WON the court should DENY petitioners' motion to reopen the case for reception of further evidence in the trial
court. YES

Ruling:
 Fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice necessitate that, at the risk of occasional errors,
the judgment or orders of courts should attain finality at some definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there would
be no end to litigation
 Section 1 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court provides that a new trial may only be granted by the court on motion
of the accused, or motu proprio with the consent of the accused "at any time before a judgment of conviction
becomes final."
 In this case, petitioners' judgment of conviction already became final and executory on 26 July 2007 the date
on which the Decision of this Court denying the petition and affirming the ruling of the CA was recorded in the
Book of Entries of Judgments. Thus, pleas for the remand of this case to the trial court for the conduct of a new
trial may no longer be entertained.
 Petitioners premise their motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. Plaridel's
extrajudicial confession, executed with the assistance of Atty. Cirilo Tejoso, Jr., and the spot report of the police
on Plaridel's apprehension.
 Newly discovered evidence refers to that which (a) is discovered 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; and (d) is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted
 The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with reasonable diligence; hence, the term "newly discovered." The confession of Plaridel does not meet
this requisite. He participated in the trial before the RTC and even gave testimony as to his defense. It was only
after he and petitioners had been convicted by the trial court that he absconded. Thus, the contention that his
confession could not have been obtained during trial does not hold water.
 The inevitable conclusion is that Plaridel's version in his extrajudicial confession is not newly discovered evidence
that can be a ground for a new trial within the contemplation of the rules.
 However, the court deemed it proper to refer the matter to the President through the Secretary of Justice for a
possible grant of clemency to petitioners.

Disposition: The motion of petitioners to reopen the case for reception of further evidence in the trial court is DENIED

SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE

Facts:
 Flores was charged with the crime of Homicide
 During his arraignment, Flores pleaded "Not Guilty" and waived the pre-trial.
 Thereafter, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses
 The defense presented as witnesses, the accused Flores himself; his companion-members of the Civilian Action
Force Group Unit (CAFGU), Romulo Alquizar and Maximo H. Manalo; and Dr. Rene Bagamasbad, resident physician
of San Pablo City District Hospital.
 To avoid criminal liability, Flores interposed self-defense.
 The Version of Flores
 o Flores claimed that he, together with four members of the CAFGU and Civil Service Unit (CSU) was about
15 meters from the house of Jesus when they heard gunshots seemingly emanating from his house.
o As he started walking towards the house, he was stopped by Latayan and handed him a baby armalite.
o Flores asked Jesus and his guests to cease firing their guns as it was already late at night and to save their
shots for the following day's fiesta procession.
o Flores claimed that despite his polite, unprovocative request and the fact that he was a relative of Jesus
and the barangay chairman, a person in authority performing a regular routine duty, he was met with
hostility by Jesus and his guests
o Jesus, who appeared drunk, immediately stood up and approached him as he was standing near the
entrance of the terrace. Jesus abruptly drew his magnum pistol and poked it directly at his chest and then
fired it. By a twist of fate, he was able to partially parry Jesus' right hand, which was holding the pistol,
and was hit on his upper right shoulder
o Jesus again aimed his gun at Flores, but the latter was able to instinctively take hold of Jesus' right hand,
which was holding the gun. As they wrestled, Jesus again fired his gun, hitting Flores' left hand
o Twice hit by bullets from Jesus, Flores, with his life and limb at great peril, instinctively swung with his
right hand the baby armalite dangling on his right shoulder towards Jesus and squeezed its trigger. When
he noticed Jesus already lying prostrate on the floor, he immediately withdrew from the house.
 The Sandiganbayan issued a decision finding Flores guilty of the offense charged.
o The Sandiganbayan rejected Flores' claim that the shooting was justified for failure to prove self-defense.
o It gave credence to the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Flores shot Jesus with an
armalite rifle (M16) which resulted in his death.
o According to the Sandiganbayan, there was no reason to doubt the testimonies of the said witnesses who
appeared to have no ill motive to falsely testify against Flores
 Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration.
 As the motion did not contain any notice of hearing, the Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the Records
Accused's Motion for Reconsideration
 The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for being a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing.
The Motion for Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro forma which did not toll the running of the
period to appeal, and thus, the assailed judgment of this Court has become FINAL and EXECUTORY.
 Hence, Flores filed the present petition before this Court on the ground that the Sandiganbayan committed
reversible errors involving questions of substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence

Argument:
Flores argues that he fully complied with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 37 and Section 4 of Rule 121 of the Rules
of Court when the motion itself was served upon the prosecution and the latter, in fact, admitted receiving a copy. For
Flores, such judicial admission amounts to giving due notice of the motion which is the intent behind the said rules. He
further argues that a hearing on a motion for reconsideration is not necessary as no further proceeding, such as a hearing,
is required under Section 3 of Rule 121.

 Flores' argument failed to persuade the Court.

 Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court reads:
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify
the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
 Section 2, Rule 37 provides:
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. The motion shall be made in writing
stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse
party. A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
  Section 4, Rule 121 states:
SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in
writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
be given to the prosecutor.
 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. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time
and date of the hearing, with proof of service.
 This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the
requirement is mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. "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."
 In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in failing to include a notice of hearing, his motion was a
worthless piece of paper with no legal effect whatsoever. Thus, his motion was properly dismissed by the
Sandiganbayan.

Argument:
Flores invokes the exercise by the Court of its discretionary power to review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan. He
avers that the ponente as well as the other members of the First Division who rendered the assailed decision, were not
able to observe the witnesses or their manner of testifying as they were not present during the trial. He, thus, argues that
there was palpable misapprehension of the facts that led to wrong conclusions of law resulting in his unfounded
conviction.

 His contention is devoid of merit.

 In the present case, Flores has not convinced the Court that there was misapprehension or misinterpretation of
the material facts nor was the defense able to adduce evidence to establish that the factual findings were arrived
at with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that Flores shot Jesus
and continued riddling his body with bullets even after he was already lying helpless on the ground.

Argument:
Flores insists that the evidence of this case clearly established all the elements of self-defense. According to him, there
was an unlawful aggression on the part of Jesus The attack by Jesus was sudden, unexpected and instantaneous. The
intent to kill was present because Jesus kept pointing the gun directly at him. As he tried to parry Jesus' hand, which was
holding the gun, the latter kept firing. Left with no choice, he was compelled to use the baby armalite he was carrying to
repel the attack.

 The issue of whether Flores indeed acted in self-defense is basically a question of fact. In appeals to this Court,
only questions of law may be raised and not issues of fact. The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are, thus,
binding upon this Court.
 This Court, nevertheless, finds no reason to disturb the finding of the Sandiganbayan that Flores utterly failed to
prove the existence of self-defense.
 Generally, "the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather
than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent." If the accused, however, admits killing the victim, but pleads
self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part. To escape liability, it now becomes
incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence all the elements of that justifying
circumstance
  In this case, Flores does not dispute that he perpetrated the killing of Jesus by shooting him with an M16 armalite
rifle. To justify his shooting of Jesus, he invoked self-defense. By interposing self-defense, Flores, in effect, admits
the authorship of the crime. Thus, it was incumbent upon him to prove that the killing was legally justified under
the circumstances.
 To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the elements of self-
defense. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who acts in defense of his person or rights does
not incur any criminal liability provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
 The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression.
 Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon
a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.
It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger... not merely threatening and intimidating action.
It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life." Aggression, if not
continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.
 In this case, Flores failed to discharge his burden.
 If there was any truth to Flores' claim that he merely acted in self-defense, his first shot on Jesus' shoulder, which
already caused the latter to fall on the ground, would have been sufficient to repel the attack allegedly initiated
by the latter. But Flores continued shooting Jesus. Considering the number of gunshot wounds sustained by the
victim, the Court finds it difficult to believe that Flores acted to defend himself to preserve his own life.
 When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original
aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor.
o Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured
party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed
when the aggressor was injured by the accused
 The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of
the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. In
this case, the continuous shooting by Flores which caused the fatal gunshot wounds were not necessary and
reasonable to prevent the claimed unlawful aggression from Jesus as the latter was already lying flat on the ground
after he was first shot on the shoulder
 The Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in finding accused Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide.

Disposition: the petition is DENIED.

CUSTODIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:
 Petitioners were members of the military who acted as Senator Aquino's security detail upon his arrival in Manila
from his three-year sojourn in the United States
 They were charged, together with several other members of the military, before the Sandiganbayan for the killing
of Senator Aquino who was fatally shot as he was coming down from the aircraft of China Airlines at the Manila
International Airport. Petitioners were also indicted for the killing of Rolando Galman who was also gunned down
at the airport tarmac.
 The Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision acquitting all the accused, which include the petitioners. However, the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan were later found by this Court to be a sham trial. The Court thus nullified
said proceedings, as well as the judgment of acquittal, and ordered a re-trial of the cases
 A re-trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan.
  The Sandiganbayan, while acquitting the other accused, found the petitioners guilty as principals of the crime of
murder in both Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011. It sentenced them to reclusion perpetua in each case.
 The judgment became final after this Court denied petitioners' petition for review of the Sandiganbayan decision
for failure to show reversible error in the questioned decision as well as their subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
 Petitioners sought legal assistance from the Chief Public Attorney who, in turn, requested the Independent
Forensic Group of the University of the Philippines to make a thorough review of the forensic evidence in the
double murder case.
 Petitioners invoke the following grounds for the re-opening of the case:
I. Existence of newly discovered pieces of evidence that were not available during the second trial of the
above-entitled cases which could have altered the judgment of the Sandiganbayan, specifically:
A. Independent forensic evidence uncovering the false forensic claims that led to the unjust
conviction of the petitioners-movants.
B. A key defense eyewitness to the actual killing of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.
II. There was a grave violation of due process by reason of:
A. Insufficient legal assistance of counsel;
B. Deprivation of right to counsel of choice;
C. Testimonies of defense witnesses were under duress;
D. Willful suppression of evidence;
E. Use of false forensic evidence that led to the unjust conviction of the petitioners-movants.
III. There was serious misapprehension of facts on the part of the Sandiganbayan based on false forensic
evidence, which entitles petitioners-movants to a re-trial.
 Petitioners seek to present as new evidence the findings of the forensic group
o Their report essentially concludes that it was not possible, based on the forensic study of the evidence in
the double murder case, that C1C Rogelio Moreno fired at Senator Aquino as they descended the service
stairway from the aircraft. They posit that Senator Aquino was shot while he was walking on the airport
tarmac toward the waiting AVSECOM van which was supposed to transport him from the airport to Fort
Bonifacio.
o The report also suggests that the physical evidence in these cases may have been misinterpreted and
manipulated to mislead the court. Thus, petitioners assert that the decision of the Sandiganbayan should
be voided as it was based on false forensic evidence.
 Petitioners submit that the review by the forensic group of the physical evidence in the double murder case
constitutes newly discovered evidence which would entitle them to a new trial under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
 In addition to the report of the forensic group, petitioners seek to present the testimony of an alleged eyewitness,
the driver of the waiting AVSECOM van, SPO4 Ruben M. Cantimbuhan. In his affidavit submitted to this Court,
SPO4 Cantimbuhan states that he saw a man in blue uniform similar to that of the Philippine Airlines maintenance
crew, suddenly fire at Senator Aquino as the latter was about to board the van. The man in blue was later
identified as Rolando Galman.

Issue: whether petitioners are entitled to a third trial under Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. NO

Ruling:

 The pertinent sections of Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure provide:
 Section 1. New Trial or reconsideration. At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court
may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or
reconsideration
 Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:
 a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed
during the trial;
b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable
diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably
change the judgment.
 Sec. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. The effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration are
the following:
a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, all
the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the
interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence.
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 together with the evidence already in the record.
c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside or
vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.
 The Rules allow the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly discovered evidence. In
the proceedings for new trial, the errors of law or irregularities are expunged from the record or new evidence is
introduced. Thereafter, the original judgment is vacated and a new one is rendered
 Under the Rules, a person convicted of a crime may avail of the remedy of new trial before the judgment of
conviction becomes final.
 Petitioners admit that the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 became final
and executory upon denial of their petition for review filed before this Court and their motion for reconsideration.
 They maintain that equitable considerations exist in this case to justify the relaxation of the Rules and re-open the
case to accord petitioners the opportunity to present evidence that will exonerate them from the charges against
them.
 The court does not find merit in their submission.
 Petitioners anchor their motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Courts are generally reluctant in
granting motions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence for it is presumed that the moving
party has had ample opportunity to prepare his case carefully and to secure all the necessary evidence before the
trial.
 Hence, the moving party is often required to rebut a presumption that the judgment is correct and that there has
been a lack of due diligence, and to establish other facts essential to warrant the granting of a new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence.
 before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the
evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative,
or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If
the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered
 These standards, also known as the "Berry" rule, trace their origin to the 1851 case of Berry vs. State of Georgia
 It should be emphasized that the applicant for new trial has the burden of showing that the new evidence he seeks
to present has complied with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.
 The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the
proferred evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due
diligence."
 The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the
evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered. It is to the latter
that the requirement of due diligence has relevance.
  in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial,
what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when
it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had
exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed
to secure it
 The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion;
he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably
and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him
 Applying the foregoing tests, we find that petitioners' purported evidence does not qualify as newly discovered
evidence that would justify the re-opening of the case and the holding of a third trial.
o The report of the forensic group may not be considered as newly discovered evidence as petitioners failed
to show that it was impossible for them to secure an independent forensic study of the physical evidence
during the trial of the double murder case.
o It appears from their report that the forensic group used the same physical and testimonial evidence
proferred during the trial, but made their own analysis and interpretation of said evidence.
o Petitioners, in their present motion, failed to present any new forensic evidence that could not have been
obtained by the defense at the time of the trial even with the exercise of due diligence.
o The finding that the fatal bullet which killed Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. was directed downwards sustains
the allegation of prosecution eyewitnesses to the effect that Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. was shot by a
military soldier at the bridge stairs while he was being brought down from the plane. Rebecca Quijano
saw that the senator was shot by the military man who was directly behind the Senator while the Senator
and he were descending the stairs. Rebecca Quijano's testimony in this regard is echoed by Jessie
Barcelona, Ramon Balang, Olivia Antimano,... and Mario Laher, whose testimonies this Court finds likewise
as credible.
 The report of the forensic group essentially reiterates the theory presented by the defense during the trial of the
double murder case. Clearly, the report is not newly discovered, but rather recently sought, which is not allowed
by the Rules. If at all, it only serves to discredit the version of the prosecution which had already been weighed
and assessed, and thereafter upheld by the Sandiganbayan.
 The same is true with the statement of the alleged eyewitness, SPO4 Cantimbuhan. His narration merely
corroborates the testimonies of other defense witnesses during the trial. The Sandiganbayan, however, did not
give weight to their account as it found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Rebecca Quijano and Jessie
Barcelona more credible
 Certainly, a new trial will only be allowed if the new evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted. Also, new trial will not be granted if the new evidence is merely cumulative, corroborative
or impeaching.

As additional support to their motion for new trial, petitioners also claim that they were denied due process because they
were deprived of adequate legal assistance by counsel. The court is not persuaded.

 Atty. Jimenez vigorously defended the petitioners' cause throughout the entire proceedings.
 That they did not allege any specific facts in their present motion to show that Atty. Jimenez had been remiss in
his duties as counsel. Petitioners are therefore bound by the acts and decisions of their counsel as regards the
conduct of the case. The general rule is that the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his
case and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had his counsel
proceeded differently
 The court held in People vs. Umali: mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency,
relevancy, materiality, or immateriality of a certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof are not
proper grounds for a new trial; and in general the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his
 case, and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had counsel
proceeded differently.

The court is not moved by petitioners' assertion that the forensic evidence may have been manipulated and
misinterpreted during the trial of the case. Petitioners did not allege concrete facts to support their crass claim. Hence,
it is unfounded and purely speculative.

Disposition: The motion is DENIED.

ROLEX RODRIGUEZ v. PEOPLE

Facts:
 The RTC convicted petitioner for Unfair Competition penalized under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to Sec. 170
of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and sentenced him to serve
imprisonment of two (2) years, to pay a fine of P50,000 and actual damages of P75,000.
 After promulgation of the Decision convicting him for unfair competition, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration before the RTC on the 15th or the last day of the reglementary period to appeal.
 Fourteen days after receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed his Notice of
Appeal. Thus, the denial of his Notice of Appeal on the ground of its being filed out of time under Sec. 6, Rule 122,
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
 Before the RTC, the CA and now here, petitioner was unwavering in his assertion of the applicability of the "fresh
period rule" as laid down in Neypes v. Court of Appeals
o The rationale of the "fresh period rule" is:
o To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for reconsideration
 Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial
Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the RTCs to
the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court).
 A scrutiny of the said rules, however, reveals that the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply
to Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to appeal.
 It is explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the
notice of the decision, award, judgment, final order or resolution or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new
trial or reconsideration filed

Issues: Whether the "fresh period rule" is applicable to appeals from conviction in criminal cases governed by Sec. 6 of
Rule 122 which pertinently provides: YES

Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or
from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a
motion... for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the
accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.

Ruling:
  While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the "fresh period rule" to criminal cases, the issue was squarely
addressed in Yu v. Tatad, which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to criminal cases in appeals of...
conviction under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Court held in Yu:
o While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court's pronouncement of a "fresh period"
to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
 Were we to strictly interpret the "fresh period rule" in Neypes and make it applicable only to the period to appeal
in civil cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an absurd situation where a litigant in a civil case will have
a better right to appeal than an accused in a criminal case a situation that gives undue favor to civil litigants and
unjustly discriminates against the accused-appellants.
 It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like the instant case, where the
accused files from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration which is denied by the trial
court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or
her notice of appeal.
 If the Court has accorded litigants in civil cases under the spirit and rationale in Neypes greater leeway in filing an
appeal through the "fresh period rule," with more reason that it should equally grant the same to criminal cases
which involve the accused's "sacrosanct right to liberty, which is protected by the Constitution, as no person
should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
 The court holds that petitioner seasonably filed his notice of appeal on February 2, 2009, within the fresh period
of 15 days, counted from January 19, 2009, the date of receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for
reconsideration.

Disposition: petition is GRANTED.