Below is a comprehensive discussion of Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, governing motions for new trial or reconsideration. This write-up is designed to be exhaustive yet straightforward, reflecting both the letter of the rule and relevant jurisprudential doctrines.

I. OVERVIEW OF RULE 121

Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules of Court) provides the mechanism by which an accused, before finality of a judgment of conviction, may seek relief from the trial court by way of a new trial or reconsideration. Such remedies are aimed at correcting errors committed during trial or judgment that prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the accused.

Key Purpose

New Trial: To allow the re-opening of the case (in whole or in part) so that previously unavailable evidence may be introduced, or to address grave procedural or substantive errors that occurred during trial.
Reconsideration: To correct errors of law or fact in the judgment that do not necessarily require the reception of additional evidence.

II. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF RULE 121

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 on its own initiative but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.”

Time Frame:
- Must be filed before judgment of conviction becomes final. Typically, this means within the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal (counted from promulgation of judgment or from notice to the accused).
- Once the judgment attains finality, the court loses jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial or reconsideration (subject to very limited exceptions such as correction of clerical errors, granting probation if applicable, or other post-conviction remedies not covered by Rule 121).
Initiative of the Court:
- The trial court may, motu proprio (on its own initiative), order a new trial but only with the consent of the accused.

Section 2. Grounds for New Trial

A motion for new trial may be made on any of the following grounds:

Errors of Law or Irregularities:

“Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused were committed during the trial.”
- Example: Denial of the right to counsel, improper admission or rejection of evidence, serious procedural infractions, or any other grave procedural defect that undermines due process.
Newly Discovered Evidence:

“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.”
- To merit a new trial on this ground:
  1. The evidence was discovered only after the trial;
  2. The movant exercised reasonable diligence to locate such evidence;
  3. The evidence is material, not merely cumulative or impeaching; and
  4. The evidence would likely produce a different outcome (i.e., create a reasonable doubt, lead to acquittal, or reduce liability).

Section 3. Grounds for Reconsideration

“The grounds for reconsideration are errors of law or fact in the judgment, which require no further proceedings.”

Distinct from New Trial:
- Reconsideration does not contemplate receiving new evidence. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the court made an incorrect inference of facts or an erroneous application of the law.
Examples:
- Misinterpretation of the law applied,
- Misapprehension of evidence already of record,
- Arithmetical or factual mistakes discernible from the existing evidence.

Section 4. Form of Motion and Notice to the Prosecutor

Written Motion:
- The motion for new trial or reconsideration must be in writing.
Supporting Affidavits/Documentation:
- If the motion is grounded on facts that do not appear in the record (e.g., newly discovered evidence), it must be supported by affidavits of witnesses or documents sought to be introduced.
Notice:
- The movant must give notice of the motion to the public prosecutor (or private prosecutor in cases where a private prosecutor is duly deputized).

Section 5. Hearing on Motion

“Where a motion for new trial calls for resolution of any question of fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise.”

Discretionary Reception of Evidence:
When the ground for new trial hinges on a factual question (e.g., newly discovered evidence, allegations of extrinsic fraud, or procedural irregularities), the court may conduct a hearing to determine the veracity and relevance of the proffered evidence. This hearing can involve affidavits, depositions, or even oral testimony at the judge’s discretion.

Section 6. Effects of Granting a New Trial or Reconsideration

Setting Aside the Original Judgment:
- Once a new trial is granted, the original judgment is vacated.
- A new judgment will be rendered thereafter based on the evidence admitted in the original trial and any additional evidence allowed during the new trial.
Scope of Evidence:
- If the new trial is granted on grounds of newly discovered evidence or errors/irregularities:
  - The evidence presented during the first trial remains (unless the court orders otherwise).
  - Newly discovered evidence or evidence showing the prejudicial error is admitted and considered alongside the original evidence.
- If the court finds that errors of law or irregularities have irretrievably tainted certain proceedings or pieces of evidence, the court may order that these be set aside and done anew.
Introduction of Additional Evidence:
- For the interest of justice, the court can allow the presentation of further testimony or documents.
Effect of Granting a Reconsideration:
- If reconsideration is granted, the court may amend the judgment accordingly.
- This may involve correcting the offense of which the accused was convicted or adjusting the penalty if the facts and the law so warrant.

Section 7. Partial or Total Re-opening of Trial

“At any time before final judgment, the court may, upon motion, allow the case to be re-opened for the introduction of additional evidence. The proceedings shall be conducted as in a new trial.”

Re-opening vs. New Trial:
A re-opening is akin to a partial new trial on specific matters or pieces of evidence. The court integrates the newly admitted evidence with that already on record.
Similar Safeguards:
The procedural safeguards applicable to a new trial (such as notice, hearing, and opportunity to present evidence) also apply to the re-opening.

Section 8. Modification of Judgment

While not an explicit separate section in older texts, jurisprudence and practice indicate that the trial court may modify its judgment so long as it does not place the accused in double jeopardy.
In practical terms, granting a motion for reconsideration is tantamount to modifying or vacating the judgment when warranted by the errors found.

III. DISTINGUISHING NEW TRIAL FROM RECONSIDERATION

Aspect	New Trial	Reconsideration
Nature	Re-opens the case for re-examination of evidence (whether completely or partially).	Assails errors of law or fact within the four corners of the existing record.
Additional Evidence	Yes. New or previously unavailable evidence may be presented (or old proceedings may be repeated).	No. Decided purely on the record already before the court.
Effect	Original judgment is vacated; a new judgment is rendered after the trial is repeated or supplemented.	Original judgment may be reversed or modified; the final outcome is contained in an amended judgment.

IV. PROCEDURAL POINTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

Single Period for Filing:
- A motion for new trial or reconsideration must be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal. This is non-extendible in criminal cases, generally 15 days from promulgation or notice.
No Second Motion for Reconsideration (Generally):
- While the strict rule of “no second motion for reconsideration” is emphatic in the Supreme Court and appellate practice, a trial court may, in exceptional cases, entertain a second motion for reconsideration if there are compelling grounds such as newly discovered issues of law or supervening events. However, best practice is to raise all pertinent matters in one comprehensive motion, because repeated motions can be denied as pro forma or dilatory.
Double Jeopardy Concerns:
- Once the accused is acquitted, the People (prosecution) cannot move for a new trial or reconsideration that would reverse the acquittal—this would violate the accused’s protection against double jeopardy.
- The remedy of the prosecution in case of alleged errors in an acquittal is generally limited to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But this is outside the scope of Rule 121 strictly speaking.
Consent of the Accused:
- If the court opts to grant a new trial on its own motion, the accused must consent; otherwise, the risk is reversing an acquittal or re-opening the case without the accused’s approval (which might violate double jeopardy principles).
Deferment of Appeal:
- Once a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, the period to appeal is tolled until receipt of the order resolving the motion. If the motion is denied, the accused may still appeal within the remainder of the appeal period.
Relevant Jurisprudence:
- People v. Bocar, G.R. No. L-35785: Emphasizes that newly discovered evidence must be truly “new” and not merely cumulative.
- People v. Arcega, G.R. No. 123950: Clarifies that errors of law must be substantial and prejudicial.
- People v. Nano, G.R. No. 208162: Illustrates the court’s discretion in granting new trial when evidence was withheld due to extrinsic fraud.
- People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125224: Reiterates that once the judgment is final, the trial court loses jurisdiction (except for recognized exceptions outside the ambit of Rule 121).

V. BEST PRACTICES & LEGAL ETHICS

Drafting the Motion
- Be precise and complete in stating the grounds.
- Attach all necessary affidavits, certifications, or documentary evidence if the ground is newly discovered evidence.
- If the motion is based on errors of law, cite specific portions of the record or relevant jurisprudence showing the prejudicial effect of the error.
Candor Towards the Tribunal
- Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must not mislead the court with false statements or frivolous contentions.
- When raising newly discovered evidence, ensure it truly meets the test of newly discovered—do not attempt to re-label previously known evidence as “newly discovered.”
Service of Notice
- Properly serve the motion on the prosecution (and private offended party if necessary) to avoid technical denial.
Avoid Pro Forma Motions
- A mere repetition of arguments without substantial basis is often disallowed or summarily denied. Ensure that the motion distinctly sets forth relevant issues or pieces of evidence not previously litigated or evaluated.

VI. SAMPLE FORM: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

CAPTION
(Name of Court)
(Title of Case)

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Accused, by counsel, respectfully states:

That judgment was rendered against the accused on (date), convicting him/her of the offense of ____. A copy of the judgment was received on (date).

That there exist substantial errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial which prejudiced the accused, specifically:

[Enumerate specific errors and explain how they prejudiced the accused’s rights.]

That the accused has newly discovered evidence of material importance, which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the trial, consisting of:

[Describe the evidence in detail; attach affidavits or documents as Annexes.]

That if introduced, the said evidence would probably change the judgment, given that [explain how the evidence directly impacts or negates the findings of guilt].

That this motion is filed within the period for perfecting an appeal and before the judgment has become final.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated (date) and order a new trial in accordance with Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

(Place and Date)

Respectfully submitted.

(Counsel for the Accused)
(PTR No., IBP No., Roll No., MCLE Compliance, Address)

VII. CONCLUSION

Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure serves as a vital procedural safeguard, ensuring that no accused is forced to suffer the consequences of a conviction tainted by significant legal or factual errors or by undiscovered yet decisive evidence. A meticulous understanding of the grounds, the formal requirements, and the implications of granting a new trial or reconsideration is essential to uphold the constitutional right to due process and to secure a just resolution of criminal proceedings.

In essence, new trial is an extraordinary remedy geared towards re-opening proceedings—wholly or partially—to cure substantial errors or bring to light newly discovered evidence. Reconsideration, on the other hand, is a more limited remedy focused on correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Both remedies underscore the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and the protection of the accused’s constitutional rights. A defense lawyer must utilize these remedies promptly and ethically, ensuring adherence to both procedural rules and the highest standards of professional responsibility.