1. People v.

Castelo,
G.R. No. L-10774, February 16, 1961

FACTS:
Petitioner was sentenced to death for Murder. While the case is on review with
the Supreme Court, he filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the
stenographic notes of the testimonies of witnesses were lost. There was no
mention of this loss in the appellants brief.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the loss of stenographic notes is a sufficient ground for new trial?

HELD:
No, the irregularity that justifies a new trial is one that has been committed during
the trial. Where the proceedings have been all in accordance with law and
decision on the merits has been duly rendered and promulgated, the original
decision which is extant with the records need not be set aside. It is only when
the decision itself has been lost and no authentic copy thereof is obtainable, that
the case be decided anew, as if it had never been decided. (Rule 121, Rules of
Court)

2. Ybiernas v. Gabaldon
GR. No. 178925, June 1, 2011

FACTS:
In a civil case, petitioners filed a motion for new trial claiming that they have
discovered that Cadastral Case No. 10 did not exist. Respondents, however,
oppose the motion on the ground that certifications to the effect that the
Cadastral Cases did not exist could have been presented during trial had
petitioners exercised due diligence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the newly discovered evidence warrants new trial

HELD:
YES, 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)
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. (Rule 121, Rules of
Court)

3. Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 151911, July 25, 2011
FACTS:
During the conduct of a new trial in the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, the
testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses were taken with the
exception of those of prosecution witnesses Teofilo and Edgar Oayumo. The
prosecution instead filed a Motion to Admit Former Testimonies of Prosecution
Witnesses stating that Teofilo had died and Edgar was out of the country.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the admission of the testimonies given in the previous case is
erroneous

HELD:
Granting arguendo that the First Division erred in admitting the testimonies of the
Payumos, the same would still not justify another new trial. An erroneous
admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for new trial
or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the
decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have
changed the decision.

4. People v. Dalisay
G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009

FACTS:
The accused, Antonio Dalisay, is the live0in partner of the victims mother. The
16-year-old victim was raped by the accused, but was also molested even prior
to the crime committed. An information was filed against the accused and in it,
the victim was identified as the accuseds stepdaughter. The RTC convicted
Dalisay of Qualified Rape. Upon appeal, the CA modified the RTCs ruling,
convicting the accused of Simple Rape instead.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there should be new trial

HELD:
NO, the court cannot convict the accused-appellant of qualified rape because the
special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were ot sufficiently
alleged in the information.
Hence, no irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have
been committed during trial or new and no new material evidence was
discovered. Substantial procedures of law were follow, so a new trial cannot be
warranted.

5. Mapagay v. People
G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioners counsel of record received on September 21, 2004 a copy of the
RTC decision affirming petitioners conviction. However, petitioner filed her
motion for reconsideration only on November 3, 2004. Petitioner alleges that she
learned of the RTC Decision only on October 20, 2004, when she asked a friend
to check the status of the case and that her counsel of record did not inform her
of the RTC Decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner may file the motion for reconsideration after the
lapse of 15 days

HELD:
NO, failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period
renders the subject decision final and executor. The decision becomes
immutable and unalterable. This is founded on considerations of public policy
and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become
final at some point in time.
As to petitioners argument that counsel did not inform her, the rile is that the
omission or negligence of counsel binds the client.

6. De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 103276, April 11, 1996

FACTS:
The Supreme Court denied with finality the petitioners MR of its decision
affirming petitioners conviction before the Sandiganbayan. Now, he filed an
Omnibus Motion for Leave To Vacate First Motion For Reconsideration In The
Light Of The Present Development And To Consider Evidence Presented Herein
And To Set Aside Conviction. In this motion, he, for the first time, seeks to be
relieved fro the mistake of his former lawyers in demurring to evidence without
leave of court, depriving him of presenting evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Omnibus Motion is violative on the rule on second MRs

HELD:
NO, the court has the power to suspend its rules or to except a particular case
from its operations whenever the purposes of justice require it. In a considerable
host of cases, this prerogative was invoked to relax procedural rules of the most
mandatory character, such as the period of appeal. When transcendental matters
like life, liberty, or State security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to
be welcomed more generously.

7. Astorga v. People
G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004

FACTS:
The Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming petitioners conviction by the
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed an MR, which was denied with finality. Petitioner
then filed an Urgent Motion For Leave To File Second Motion For
Reconsideration with attached MR. Subsequently, petitioner filed a
Supplement for the Second Motuon for Reconideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the second MR be admitted?

HELD: YES, while a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a
prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the court to admit the
same, provided that it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may
be better served thereby.

8. Valeroso vs. CA
G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009

FACTS:
The Supreme Court affirmed the CAS Decision affirming the conviction of
petitioner in the RTC. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied
with finality. Hes again before the Supreme Court through a letter of Appeal
imploring the SC to once more take a contemplative reflection and deliberation
on the case, focusing on his breached constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the letter-appeal may be admitted

HELD:
YES, the letter-appeal is actually in the nature of asecond MR, While it is, as a
general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to
admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice
maybe served thereby.