Case Digest (G.R. No. 84623)
Facts:
Felipe Toribio and Julian Labrador were accused in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental (Branch 37) in Criminal Case No. 2373 of arson thru reckless imprudence. The trial court rendered a Decision promulgated on February 12, 1986, convicting each accused and sentencing them to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Toribio and Labrador, together with Vicente Saycon, perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals on February 19, 1986. Several months later, on December 8, 1986, Toribio and Labrador filed in the Court of Appeals an Explanation and Withdrawal of Appeal, confirming the earlier withdrawal of their appeal because they were applying for probation; Saycon had already died. On May 13, 1987, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the case as to Saycon and treating the appeal of Toribio and Labrador as WITHDRAWN on the ground that they intended to apply for probation; entry was made the same day. After the records were...Case Digest (G.R. No. 84623)
Facts:
Petitioners Felipe Toribio and Julian Labrador, with Vicente Saycon, were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental (Branch 37) for arson thru reckless imprudence, and each was sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Decision was promulgated on February 12, 1986, and petitioners perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals on February 19, 1986.After Vicente Saycon died, Toribio and Labrador, on December 8, 1986, filed in the Court of Appeals an Explanation and Withdrawal of Appeal to apply for probation. On May 13, 1987, the Court of Appeals dismissed as to Saycon and treated the appeal of Toribio and Labrador as withdrawn. On June 3, 1987, the records having been remanded, petitioners filed a Motion for Probation in the trial court. The trial judge denied the motion for lack of timeliness and because petitioners had perfected an appeal, invoking the bar introduced by P.D. No. 1990 to P.D. No. 968; hence petitioners sought certiorari in the Supreme Court, assailing the denial as grave abuse of discretion.
Issues:
- Whether P.D. No. 1990 (amending P.D. No. 968) applies to bar probation when the defendants perfected an appeal before P.D. No. 1990 became effective.
- Whether petitioners’ application for probation was properly denied on the ground that it was filed beyond the period for perfecting an appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)