Case Digest (G.R. No. 152044)
Facts:
Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin were convicted on October 29, 1996 by the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 2, for violation of Section 68, P.D. 705 and sentenced to an indeterminate term of two years, four months and one day to eight years; their motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on March 14, 2000 but reduced the penalty to an indeterminate term of six months, one day to one year, eight months and twenty-one days, the judgment became final on April 12, 2000, petitioners filed an Application for Probation on August 29, 2001 which the trial court denied, the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial on January 11, 2002, and petitioners then sought review by the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- May petitioners apply for probation after they had perfected an appeal from their conviction when the appellate court later reduced the sentence to a probationable term?
- Does Francisco v. CA permit an exception allowing probation where the appeal was allegedly limited to reducing an excessive penalty?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 2002 affirming the trial court's denial of petitioners' Application for Probation was affirmed; costs were imposed on the petitioners. The Court refused to carve out an exception to the statutory bar on probation for appellants.
Ratio:
Under Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, and the filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Petitioners perfected an appeal and in their appellate brief challenged the merits of their conviction, not solely the penalty; therefore they ipso facto relinquished the remedy of probation and could not invoke probation after the appellate modification of sentence. The Court declined to extend Francisco v. CA or create an equitable exception where petitioners did not demonstrate that the appeal was limited to correcting an excessive penalty.
Doctrine:
- Under Section 4, P.D. 968, an application for probation shall not be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)