G.R. No. 147629 - JAKA Investments Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Pablo C. Francisco, as President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. Company, verbally insulted his employees with abusive language on several occasions in April 1980.
Five employees filed separate Informations against him charging multiple counts of grave oral defamation, each Information containing charges for four separate days from April 9 to 12, 1980.

On January 2, 1990, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, Branch 61, found petitioner guilty of grave oral defamation in four of the five cases (Crim. Cases Nos. 105206, 105207, 105209, and 105210) and sentenced him to 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional for each crime committed on each date.
Petitioner was ordered to pay exemplary damages of P10,000 to each offended party and attorney's fees of P5,000, plus costs.
He was acquitted in the fifth case due to failure of the offended party to testify.

Petitioner appealed to the RTC insisting on his innocence but the RTC affirmed the conviction.
The RTC appreciated a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation, reducing the penalty to a straight 8 months imprisonment for each case count.

Petitioner did not appeal further; RTC's decision became final.
The MeTC issued a warrant of arrest for the execution of the sentence.
Before arrest, petitioner applied for probation which was denied by the MeTC citing the Supreme Court ruling in Llamado v. Court of Appeals and the provisions of P.D. 968 as amended.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which was dismissed on grounds including failure to comply with procedural rules, late filing of probation application, and the prohibition against probation application after a perfected appeal.

Petitioner claims he appealed solely to reduce the penalties to qualify for probation and that he has not lost his right to avail of probation despite having appealed.
He argues that the original penalties imposed by MeTC were not probationable, thus necessitating his appeal.

Whether petitioner is entitled to probation under P.D. 968, as amended, despite having appealed his conviction.
Whether multiple penalties imposed in separate Informations should be considered separately or summed to determine eligibility for probation.
Whether the probation application was timely filed within the period allowed by law.