Scribd
Upload
863 views2 pages

Kumar Vs People G.R. No. 247661, JUNE 15, 2020 Sypnosis:: Principles

Deepak Kumar was found guilty by the trial court for violating RA 9262. Kumar was absent during the promulgation of the decision so his counsel received it. No appeal was filed so the decision became final. Over a year later, Kumar's counsel filed a notice of appeal but it was denied as the decision was already final. Kumar filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which also dismissed it, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The case discusses the procedural requirements that must be satisfied for a petition for review on certiorari to be entertained by the Supreme Court under Rule 45, including raising substantial questions of law and complying with filing deadlines.

Uploaded by

darwin andres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
863 views2 pages

Kumar Vs People G.R. No. 247661, JUNE 15, 2020 Sypnosis:: Principles

Deepak Kumar was found guilty by the trial court for violating RA 9262. Kumar was absent during the promulgation of the decision so his counsel received it. No appeal was filed so the decision became final. Over a year later, Kumar's counsel filed a notice of appeal but it was denied as the decision was already final. Kumar filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which also dismissed it, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The case discusses the procedural requirements that must be satisfied for a petition for review on certiorari to be entertained by the Supreme Court under Rule 45, including raising substantial questions of law and complying with filing deadlines.

Uploaded by

darwin andres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KUMAR VS PEOPLE

G.R. No. 247661, JUNE 15, 2020

SYPNOSIS:

Deepak Kumar was found guilty by the trial court for charges of violating RA
9262 but during the promulgation, despite due notice, the accused was absent thus
Decision was received by Kumar's counsel of record. As no motion, pleading, or any
other submission in reference to this Decision was ever filed before the Regional Trial
Court, this Decision lapsed into finality. Entry of judgment was thereafter made. Kumar's
counsel of record was served notice of such entry. A year and a half later, counsel of
the accused filed before the Regional Trial Court an Entry of Appearance with Notice of
Appeal. The Regional Trial Court denied the Notice of Appeal as the Decision sought to
be appealed had become final. Following the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration,
Kumar filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
dismissed Kumar's Rule 65 Petition as it found no grave abuse of discretion on the part
of Judge Aguinaldo in denying Kumar's Notice of Appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

The remedy facilitated by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is appeal by certiorari.


For any petition for review on certiorari to prosper and warrant attention by this Court, it
must satisfy the basic procedural requisites imposed by Rule 45. Among others, it must
not only raise pure questions of law but also questions of such substance as to be of
distinctly significant consequence and value. A Rule 45 petition that fails to readily
demonstrate "special and important reasons," as required by Rule 45, Section 6, may
be denied due course, and disposed without further action by this Court.

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of


Court praying that the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 156711 be reversed and set aside. The assailed Decision denied petitioner
Deepak Kumar's (Kumar) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and
found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court in declining to
entertain Kumar's Notice of Appeal, as the trial court decision which Kumar sought to
appeal had lapsed into finality. The assailed Resolution denied Kumar's Motion for
Reconsideration.

From Rule 45's provisions will be gleaned basic procedural standards which a
petitioner must satisfy if one's Rule 45 Petition is to be entertained:
(1) that the petition does not only exclusively raise questions of law, but also that it
distinctly sets forth those legal issues;

(2) that it be filed within 15 days of notice of the adverse ruling that impels it;

(3) that docket and other lawful fees are paid;

(4) that proper service is made;

(5) that all matters that Section 4 specifies are indicated, stated, or otherwise
contained in it

(6) that it is manifestly meritorious;

(7) that it is not prosecuted manifestly for delay; and

(8) that that the questions raised in it are of such substance as to warrant
consideration.

You might also like