Title
Bernardo vs. Balagot
Case
G.R. No. 86561
Decision Date
Nov 10, 1992
Pablo Bernardo's probation application denied after appealing estafa conviction; SC upheld P.D. 1990, barring probation post-appeal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86561)

Facts:

1. Conviction and Sentencing:

  • Pablo Bernardo was convicted of estafa by the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, on September 5, 1984. He was sentenced to 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of prision correccional as minimum to 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional medium as maximum, along with accessory penalties.

2. Appeals:

  • Bernardo appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija, which affirmed the decision with modifications on April 25, 1985.
  • He then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which sustained the decision on December 24, 1985.
  • On January 17, 1986, Bernardo filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which was denied.
  • He subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on November 16, 1986, which was also denied.

3. Application for Probation:

  • While his motion for new trial and/or reconsideration was pending in the Court of Appeals, Bernardo filed an application for probation on February 3, 1986.
  • The application was referred to the Probation Officer of Nueva Ecija, who recommended its approval.
  • However, on October 11, 1987, Municipal Judge Francisco R. Andres denied the application based on Section 4 of P.D. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, which prohibits probation for those who have appealed their conviction. The denial was also based on Bernardo's unsatisfactory conduct.

4. Judicial Review:

  • Bernardo elevated the matter to the RTC via a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a restraining order on February 1, 1988. The petition was denied on August 17, 1988, and a motion for reconsideration was also denied on January 9, 1989.
  • Bernardo then sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  1. Whether Bernardo is entitled to probation despite having appealed his conviction.
  2. Whether the amendment to P.D. 968 (P.D. 1990) applies retroactively to Bernardo's case.
  3. Whether the denial of Bernardo's application for probation by the lower courts constituted grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.