G.R. No. 114343 - Cal vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114343)

Factual Background

An information for illegal recruitment was filed against the Petitioner on September 5, 1990. The Petitioner posted bail and remained provisionally free. A decision finding him guilty of violating Article 36(a) of the Labor Code was rendered June 8, 1992, and was promulgated in open court on July 15, 1992, in the presence of the Petitioner. The trial court issued a commitment order the same day. On July 16, 1992, the Petitioner, assisted by counsel, filed an application for probation, an affidavit of recognizance, and an application for release on recognizance.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the Petitioner filed a “Motion to Withdraw Application for Probation and Notice of Appeal” on July 29, 1992, alleging threats and lack of proper consultation, the trial court conducted a full hearing to verify those claims. The trial court found the allegations baseless, determined that counsel had properly advised the Petitioner regarding the effects of probation and appeal, and concluded that the Petitioner had chosen to apply for probation to avoid detention and other burdens. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw on November 20, 1992, ordered the Petitioner to manifest his desire to pursue probation by reporting to the Probation and Parole Officer within seventy-two hours, and warned that failure to do so would result in service of sentence.

Intermediate Appeals and Motions

The Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the November 20, 1992 order on December 14, 1992, which the trial court denied on January 4, 1993 on the ground that the Petitioner had availed himself of the benefits of the Probation Law and therefore had foreclosed the remedy of appeal. A motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied on June 1, 1993. Thereafter the Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on July 9, 1993; the Court of Appeals denied due course and dismissed the petition in its November 11, 1993 decision. A motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied as filed out of time by twenty-three days.

Issues Presented

The Petitioner contended that the respondent Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion in two principal respects. First, he attacked the trial court’s July 15, 1992 order committing him to jail immediately after promulgation of judgment but before finality, despite his having posted bail. Second, he challenged the trial court’s November 20, 1992 order denying his motion to withdraw the probation application and refusing to give due course to his notice of appeal.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The Petitioner argued that the commitment order and immediate confinement were illegal because his bail remained in force pending the period to appeal. He further maintained that his application for probation had been filed under duress, that he was not properly advised, and that he should be permitted to withdraw the application and pursue an appeal so that the judgment could be reviewed on its merits.

Respondents’ Position and Procedural Responses

The Solicitor General, representing the public respondent, and the courts below maintained that the Petitioner voluntarily and with counsel’s assistance filed an application for probation and related papers, and that under Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, the filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. The respondents contended that the application for probation rendered the judgment final and executory and thereby terminated the bail bond’s effect. The trial court further found the Petitioner’s allegations of coercion and incompetent advice to be unsubstantiated after hearing.

Supreme Court’s Disposition

The Court resolved to DENY the petition for review on certiorari. The Court found no reversible error in the rulings of the respondent Court of Appeals and the trial court. The judgment of conviction, followed by the Petitioner’s subsequent application for probation, produced the legal consequences contemplated by the amended Probation Law; accordingly, the commitment order and the denial of the motion to withdraw the application for probation were upheld.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, which expressly provides that “the filing of the application (for probation) shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.” The Court explained that the amendment made appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies to prevent a person from appealing a conviction and, after exhausting appellate remedies, still applying for probation to undo the affirmance. The Court reiterated that an applicatio

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 114343)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Angelo Cal was the convicted accused and petitioner before this Court.
Court of Appeals was the respondent appellate tribunal whose Decision denying a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was assailed.
People of the Philippines was the criminal complainant and respondent below and in this Court.
The petition to this Court was a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' November 11, 1993 Decision and the trial court orders in Criminal Case No. 0822.

Key Factual Allegations

An information for illegal recruitment under Article 36(a) of the Labor Code was filed against the petitioner after September 5, 1990.
The petitioner posted bail for provisional liberty after the filing of the information.
A decision finding the petitioner guilty was rendered on June 8, 1992 and was promulgated on July 15, 1992, after which a commitment order was issued the same day.
On July 16, 1992, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, filed an application for probation, an affidavit of recognizance, and an application for release on recognizance.
The trial court directed a probation investigation and report within sixty days after receiving the probation application.
On July 29, 1992, the petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Application for Probation and Notice of Appeal alleging threats and improper advice by counsel.

Procedural History

The trial court conducted a hearing on the petitioner's allegations and denied the motion to withdraw the probation application in an order dated November 20, 1992.
The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the November 20, 1992 order on December 14, 1992, which the trial court denied on January 4, 1993 on the ground that the petitioner had availed of probation and therefore could not appeal.
The trial court denied a motion for reconsideration of the January 4, 1993 order by an order dated June 1, 1993.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1993, which was denied due course and dismissed in the Decision of November 11, 1993; a motion for reconsideration was denied as filed out of time.
The petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court which this Court denied.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse by issuing a commitment order for immediate confinement after promulgation of judgment despite the petitioner having posted bail and prior to finality of judgment.
Whether the trial court and the appellate court committed grave abuse by denying the petitioner's motion to withdraw his application for probation and by refusing to give due course to his notice of appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the commitment order was illegal because it was issued before the