Case Digest (G.R. No. 108747)
Facts:
Pablo C. Francisco v. Court of Appeals and the Honorable Maximo C. Contreras, G.R. No. 108747, April 06, 1995, Supreme Court En Banc, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pablo C. Francisco, then President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. Company, was charged in five separate informations by five employees for uttering gravely defamatory words on four different days (9–12 April 1980). The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, Branch 61, found him guilty in four of the five cases on January 2, 1990, sentencing him in each convicted count to one year and one day to one year and eight months prision correccional, ordering indemnities and exemplary damages; he was acquitted in one case for failure of the offended party to testify.
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 59. On August 5, 1991 the RTC affirmed guilt but appreciated a mitigating circumstance (analogous to passion or obfuscation) and modified the penalty to a straight eight (8) months imprisonment "in each case." Petitioner did not further appeal and the RTC decision became final. Before execution of sentence the MeTC issued a warrant of arrest; petitioner then filed an application for probation with the MeTC, which Judge Maximo C. Contreras denied citing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Llamado v. Court of Appeals.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals by certiorari; the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition on multiple grounds (noncompliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, failure to move for reconsideration, untimeliness of the probation application, and the rule in Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended, that no application for probation shall be entertained if an appeal has been perfected). His motion for reconsideration there was denied.
Petitioner filed an urgent petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in an en banc decision authored by Justice Bellosillo, denied the petition. The Court's judgment...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does perfecting an appeal from a judgment of conviction bar an accused from thereafter applying for probation under Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended?
- Was petitioner’s application for probation timely filed within the period prescribed by the Probation Law?
- For purposes of disqualification under Section 9(a) of P.D. No. 968 (the six‑year maximum), should multiple prison terms imposed in one decision be aggregated (totaled) or considered separately?
- If the Court adopts either aggregation or separation, did the facts of this case ren...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)