Short answer. Yes. As long as your appeal has been perfected and the Court of Appeals still has jurisdiction over the case, you may move for a new trial on newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier through due diligence and would likely change the result, supported by affidavits proving both points.

What the law says

At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the case, a party may file a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a character as would probably change the result. The motion shall be accompanied by affidavits showing the facts constituting the grounds therefor and the newly discovered evidence.

Rule 53, Section 1 — Period for filing; ground. Read the full provision →

The window to file

Rule 53, Section 1 opens a period for a motion for new trial that runs from the perfection of the appeal until the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the case — a broader window than the fixed deadlines used for motions for reconsideration. This reflects the nature of the ground involved: newly discovered evidence, by definition, may only surface well after the appeal has already started. A party who discovers new evidence the day after the appeal is perfected and a party who discovers it years into a protracted appeal are both within the window, so long as the Court of Appeals has not yet lost jurisdiction over the case, for instance through entry of judgment.

The two-part test for the evidence

Not just any new evidence qualifies. The section requires that the evidence could not have been discovered before the trial in the lower court despite due diligence, and that it is of a character that would probably change the result of the case. Both elements must be shown — evidence a party simply failed to look for earlier does not qualify, and evidence that is merely additional or cumulative to what was already presented is unlikely to meet the second test. This two-part test keeps the motion for new trial from becoming a second chance to introduce evidence a party simply chose not to gather the first time, reserving it for evidence that genuinely could not have been produced no matter how diligent the party was at trial.

What the motion must contain

The section requires the motion to be accompanied by affidavits establishing the facts supporting both requirements — that the evidence could not have been found earlier despite due diligence, and that it would probably change the result — and describing the newly discovered evidence itself. A bare motion asserting that new evidence exists, without supporting affidavits, does not satisfy the section's requirements. The affidavit requirement forces the moving party to commit to specifics under oath rather than making a vague, unverified claim, giving the Court of Appeals something concrete to evaluate before it decides whether the case should be reopened for additional evidence at all.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.