Case Digest (G.R. No. 247661)
Facts:
Deepak Kumar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 247661, June 15, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Deepak Kumar; respondent is the People of the Philippines.In the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Muntinlupa City, Branch 207, Presiding Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo issued a Joint Decision dated August 18, 2016, finding Kumar guilty of violations of Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004): Section 5(a) (physical violence) and Section 5(g) (sexual violence). The RTC imposed penalties: in Criminal Case No. 11-544, four months arresto mayor and various damages; in Criminal Case No. 11-545, an indeterminate term (minimum four years two months to maximum eight years and one day) plus accessory penalties and damages; and issued a protection order. Promulgation occurred in Kumar’s absence; a copy of the Decision was received by his counsel of record on August 23, 2016. No motion for new trial or other post-judgment pleading was filed, and entry of judgment was recorded; counsel was served notice of entry on September 8, 2016.
About a year and a half later, on March 14, 2018, a different law firm (D Dimayacyac Law Firm) filed an Entry of Appearance with Notice of Appeal in the RTC. On March 27, 2018, the RTC (Judge Aguinaldo) denied the Notice of Appeal on the ground that the Decision had already lapsed into finality. Kumar sought reconsideration in the RTC, which was denied; he then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In a November 23, 2018 Decision, the CA dismissed Kumar’s Rule 65 Petition for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge. Kumar’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by Resolution dated May 21, 2019.
Kumar elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, contending inter alia that the RTC erred in promulgating judgment in his absence and that service on his counsel was ineffectual because counsel had supposedly withdrawn. The Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did petitioner present the "special and important reasons" under Rule 45, Section 6, to warrant the Supreme Court's discretionary review of the CA's decision?
- Substantive: Did the Court of Appeals err in finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC judge in refusing to entertain p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)