This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-03-08 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| (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. (emphasis supplied) In line with the objective of the Rules of Court to set guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but without shackling the hands that dispense it, the remedy of new trial has been described as "a new invention to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice."[8] Thus, 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.[9] | |||||
|
2001-12-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The 1964 amendment of the Rules, however, allowed the fiscal to move for the modification or the setting aside of the judgment before it became final or an appeal was perfected.[40] Under this amendment, a judgment acquired finality and the trial court lost jurisdiction only in the following cases: (1) after the 15-day period to appeal lapsed,[41] (2) when the defendant voluntarily submitted to the execution of judgment, (3) when the defendant perfected the appeal,[42] (4) when the accused withdrew the appeal, (5) when the accused expressly waived in writing the right to appeal,[43] and (6) when the accused filed a petition for probation.[44] Under this amendment, the trial court had plenary power to alter or revise its judgment in accordance with the requirements of law and justice. | |||||