Case Digest (G.R. No. 110898)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Judge Antonio C. Evangelista and Grildo S. Tugonon, G.R. No. 110898, February 20, 1996, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Grildo S. Tugonon was charged with frustrated homicide in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental (Branch 21). The information alleged that on May 26, 1988 Tugonon stabbed the victim, inflicting penetrating but non‑perforating wounds; timely medical attendance prevented the victim’s death. After trial the RTC found Tugonon guilty, sentenced him to one year of prision correccional in its minimum period, ordered P5,000.00 for medical expenses, and credited him with the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self‑defense and voluntary surrender.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of two months arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months prision correccional as maximum (Decision dated January 23, 1992). On December 21, 1992 the RTC set the case for repromulgation of the judgment on January 4, 1993. On December 28, 1992 Tugonon filed an application for probation with the RTC, asserting he met the qualifications under P.D. No. 968, that his penalty had been reduced on appeal, and relying on Santos To v. Pano as supporting probate-after-appeal practice.
The RTC ordered a probation interview on February 2, 1993. The Chief Probation and Parole Officer recommended denial on February 18, 1993 (and reiterated that recommendation on April 16, 1993), reasoning that Tugonon had waived his right to seek probation by having appealed the trial court’s judgment. Despite the probation officer’s recommend...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in granting probation to Tugonon despite his having perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction by the trial court under the amendment introduced by P.D. No. 1990 to P.D. No. 968?
- Does the law permit a distinction between meritorious and unmeritorious appeals such that a meritorious appeal preserves an applican...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)