Short answer. Yes — but only while the judgment of conviction is not yet final. At any time before finality, the court may grant a new trial or reconsideration, on motion of the accused or on its own initiative with the accused's consent. Once the judgment becomes final, this window closes.
What the law says
At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.
Rule 121, Section 1 — New trial or reconsideration. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings.
Rule 121, Section 3 — Ground for reconsideration. Read the full provision →
Conviction is not the end of the trial court's power
Rule 121 keeps the convicting court's hands on the case a while longer: at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration. The judgment, though pronounced, is not yet immovable. The same judge who convicted can reopen or rethink — a recognition that errors are most cheaply corrected by the court that made them, before the case ascends on appeal or the judgment hardens into finality.
Who can set this in motion
Two routes exist, and both run through the accused. The ordinary one is a motion by the accused. The unusual one is the court acting at its own instance — a judge who, on reflection, doubts the judgment — but with the consent of the accused. That consent requirement is not courtesy; reopening a case carries risks for the accused as well as hope, and the Rules leave the choice of bearing those risks with the person convicted. What the provision does not provide is a route for the prosecution to demand a new trial of an accused who wants none.
Reconsideration: fixing the judgment without new proceedings
The Rules separate the two remedies by what they require. Reconsideration is the narrower, faster one: the court grants it on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings. It attacks the judgment on the record as it stands — the law was misapplied, the facts found are contradicted by the evidence already in — and asks the judge to correct the ruling, not to rehear the case. A new trial, by contrast, contemplates proceedings being taken again or supplemented. Choosing between them is a question of what went wrong: a flawed judgment calls for reconsideration; a flawed or incomplete trial calls for a new one.
The deadline hiding in the word "final"
Everything in this Rule hangs on the phrase before a judgment of conviction becomes final. Finality is not a distant formality — it arrives on its own schedule once the period to appeal runs, and with it this remedy evaporates. The practical consequence: the decision whether to move for new trial or reconsideration must be made immediately after the judgment is promulgated, alongside the decision whether to appeal, because the same days are running on both. A convicted accused should be with counsel within days of the judgment, not weeks — the motion the Rule allows is generous in scope but unforgiving in timing.