Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    07 Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005) Ortiz

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    This case involves Agote who was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and violation of gun ban laws. After his conviction, a new law was passed that reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. Agote argued the new law should apply to him. The trial court and appellate court rejected his argument. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Agote could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court since it was a question of law, and (2) the Supreme Court can suspend procedural rules in the interest of justice, which it did to address the substantive issue of whether the new law applied retroactively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    07 Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005) Ortiz

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    161 views2 pages
    This case involves Agote who was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and violation of gun ban laws. After his conviction, a new law was passed that reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. Agote argued the new law should apply to him. The trial court and appellate court rejected his argument. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Agote could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court since it was a question of law, and (2) the Supreme Court can suspend procedural rules in the interest of justice, which it did to address the substantive issue of whether the new law applied retroactively.

    Original Description:

    07 Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005) Ortiz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Agote who was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and violation of gun ban laws. After his conviction, a new law was passed that reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. Agote argued the new law should apply to him. The trial court and appellate court rejected his argument. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Agote could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court since it was a question of law, and (2) the Supreme Court can suspend procedural rules in the interest of justice, which it did to address the substantive issue of whether the new law applied retroactively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    161 views2 pages

    07 Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005) Ortiz

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    This case involves Agote who was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and violation of gun ban laws. After his conviction, a new law was passed that reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. Agote argued the new law should apply to him. The trial court and appellate court rejected his argument. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Agote could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court since it was a question of law, and (2) the Supreme Court can suspend procedural rules in the interest of justice, which it did to address the substantive issue of whether the new law applied retroactively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No.

    142675, July 22, 2005)


    FACTS:

    Agote, in this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
    Court, seeks to annul and set aside the following resolutions of the Court of Appeals. He was
    charged before the respondent judge with Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential
    Decree No. 1866[4] and violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826[5] (Gun Ban)

    The trial court rendered a judgment of conviction in both cases. Subsequently, Republic Act No.
    8294[6] was approved into law. He pointed out, among others, that the penalty for illegal
    possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 has already been reduced by the subsequent
    enactment of Rep. Act No. 8294, hence, the latter law, being favorable to him, should be the one
    applied in determining his penalty for illegal possession of firearms, petitioner moved for a
    reconsideration of the decision of the trial court but was denied.

    Therefrom, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari with prayer for a
    temporary restraining order but the appellate court dismissed petitioners recourse.

    PROCEDURAL ISSUE (1):

    Is the petition a question of law? If yes, can petitioner directly brought the case from RTC to SC?

    RULING:

    YES. What he questions is said courts legal conclusion that Rep. Act No. 8294 cannot be
    retroactively applied to him. Unquestionably, the issue raised is one purely of law and there is a
    question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
    certain state of facts

    Appeals from judgments of the RTC in the exercise of their original jurisdiction must be brought
    directly to the Supreme Court in cases where the appellant raises only questions of law by way
    of a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
    Procedure, as amended,[12] pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 (c). Petitioner therefore should have
    appealed the trial courts ruling to SC.This right to resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
    was effectively foreclosed, precisely because one of the requirements for the availment of the
    latter remedy is that there should be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
    the ordinary course of law, the remedies of appeal and certiorari being mutually exclusive and
    not alternative or successive.

    PROCEDURAL ISSUE (2):

    Can the SC suspend procedural rules?

    RULING:
    YES. It was shown that only after the lapsed more than fifteen (15) days when petitioner filed his
    wrong remedy of certiorari with the appellate court. Be that as it may, the Court feels that it
    must squarely address the issue raised in this case regarding the retroactivity of Rep. Act No.
    8294, what with the reality that the provisions thereof are undoubtedly favorable to petitioner.
    For this purpose, then, we shall exercise our prerogative to set aside technicalities in the Rules
    and hold the bull by its horns, so to speak. After all, the power of this Court to suspend its own
    rules whenever the interest of justice requires is not without legal authority or precedent.

    Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its
    inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning
    pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed
    or suspended in the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because
    of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules.

    You might also like