Case Digest (G.R. No. 96803)
Facts:
Heirs of the Late Francisco Abueg v. Honorable Court of Appeals (Second Division) and Joselito Orana, G.R. No. 96803, February 17, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.On February 9, 1988, private respondent Joselito Orana, while riding a Yamaha Enduro motorcycle in Silang, Cavite, struck a bicycle ridden by Francisco Abueg, causing Abueg's death. An information charging Orana with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property was filed June 1, 1988. After trial the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Orana guilty and, by decision of September 6, 1989, sentenced him to four years and two months’ imprisonment and adjudged civil and exemplary damages totaling P137,700.00.
Orana filed an application for probation on September 19, 1989. Pursuant to the RTC order of October 24, 1989, Probation Officer Amelia J. Itoc prepared a Post Sentence Investigation (PSI) recommending probation for six years; Probation Officer Jose N. Sidlacan concurred. The private prosecutor representing the heirs opposed probation and challenged Orana’s state of mind. The RTC denied the application by resolution dated January 16, 1990 and likewise denied Orana’s motion for reconsideration on March 1, 1990.
On March 27, 1990 Orana petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari with a preliminary mandatory injunction and restraining order. The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 8, 1990 enjoining enforcement of the RTC sentence, and on July 10, 1990 the CA rendered a decision granting certiorari, setting aside the RTC’s January 16 and March 1, 1990 orders, directing the RTC to give due course to the probation application, and ordering Orana’s provisional release on his original bail bond.
The Heirs filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Supreme Court to annul (a) the CA’s May 8, 1990 TRO and (b) the CA’s July 10, 1990 decision setting aside the RTC’s orders and directing release. Petitioners argued the RTC conviction and its orders had become final...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ issuance of a TRO and grant of certiorari proper where petitioners contend the RTC’s conviction and orders had become final and executory?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the RTC’s denial of probation and directing the RTC to give due course to the probation applic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)