This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, on the proposition that we may relax the stringent rules of procedure for the sake of rendering justice, we still hold that the concept of newly discovered evidence may not apply herein. In order that newly discovered evidence may be a ground for allowing a new trial, it must be fairly shown that: (a) the evidence is discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) such evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.[33] | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| For a newly discovered evidence to be appreciated as a ground for granting a motion for new trial, it must fairly be shown that (1) 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) 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.[19] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is true that petitioner could not move for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence because in order to have a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, it must be proved that: (a) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; (c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) it is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.[51] This does not mean however, that petitioner is altogether barred from having a new trial. As pointed out by Judge Acosta, the reasons put forth by petitioner could fall under mistake or excusable negligence. | |||||