Practice question
An accused knew before trial of a witness and could reasonably have obtained the testimony, but chose not to call the witness. After conviction, he offers the same known testimony as newly discovered evidence solely because it has not yet been heard. Is that sufficient?
- Yes; every unpresented item is newly discovered
- Yes; the accused's choice conclusively establishes diligence
- No; reasonable diligence and genuine later discovery must be shown
- Yes; no materiality inquiry is allowed
- No; witness testimony can never support a new trial
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rules 120 §§4–6, 121 §§1–6, 122 §§1–3,6,11, and 126 §§1,3–5; read appellate periods with Rodriguez and current appellate routes.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jul2025/gr_259589_2025.html — Fernando v. People, G.R. No. 259589, July 29, 2025, MAIN decision (newly discovered evidence and qualified recantation ground).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.