G.R. No. 144551-55 - People vs. Alviz

On October 29, 1996, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City, Branch 2, rendered a decision in Criminal Case No. 8243, finding petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin guilty of violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (as amended), for possessing forest products without the requisite permits.
The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty: a minimum of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional to a maximum of eight years of prision mayor.
The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 21, 1996.

Petitioners appealed their conviction, with the case docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 20632.
On March 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty by reducing it to an indeterminate term ranging from six months and one day to a maximum of one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional.
The decision of the CA became final and executory on April 12, 2000.

On August 29, 2001, petitioners filed an Application for Probation with the RTC, seeking relief under the Probation Law.
The RTC denied the application for probation, and its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioners then pursued a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to review the CA decision (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67308).

Petitioners contended that they should be allowed to apply for probation despite having appealed their conviction, arguing that the sentence became probationable after the CA modified the penalty.
They argued that the opportunity to avail the benefits of probation should have been preserved as the "first opportunity" clause in PD 1990 was triggered by their subsequent petition.
They compared their case to Francisco v. CA, asserting that in that case the accused was allowed to pursue probation because the penalty was already within the probationable range, unlike their situation initially where the penalty exceeded six years.
Petitioners maintained that the ruling in Francisco v. CA was inapplicable to the present case, as their appeal was not solely for reducing the penalty but involved contesting the conviction on other grounds as well.

The legal heart of the dispute is Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended by PD 1990 (the Probation Law).
Section 4 of PD 968 allows a defendant, upon conviction and before perfecting an appeal, to apply for probation. However, it clearly provides that an application for probation is barred if the defendant has perfected the appeal.
Under Section 9(a) of the Probation Law, offenders sentenced to a maximum imprisonment term of more than six years are disqualified from seeking probation.
Petitioners argued that despite their initial non-probationable sentence, the subsequent reduction by the CA should render them eligible for probation.

Whether petitioners, having appealed their conviction, were entitled to avail themselves of probation even after the Court of Appeals modified their sentence to a probationable range.
Whether the fact that the petitioners perfected their appeal automatically precludes them from seeking probation under Section 4 of PD 968, as amended by PD 1990.

Whether the ruling in Francisco v. CA, which allowed an accused whose sentence was already within a probationable range to apply for probation despite an appeal, is applicable in this case.
Whether petitioners’ contention that their situation constitutes an exception to the general rule barring probation for those who appeal has sufficient merit.

Whether petitioners made their application for probation at the “first opportunity” as mandated by the Probation Law.
Whether the delay in seeking probation following the modification of the sentence affects their eligibility.