Case Summary (G.R. No. 108747)
Case Background and Proceedings
Petitioner, as President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. Company, was convicted by the MeTC for multiple counts of grave oral defamation committed against his employees. He was sentenced to prison terms for each count and ordered to pay indemnification and damages. The MeTC convicted him in four of the five cases filed, imposing prison sentences of one year and one day to one year and eight months for each offense. The petitioner appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to a straight imprisonment of eight months per case, appreciating a mitigating circumstance. The petitioner did not appeal further, and the RTC decision became final. Before execution of the sentence, petitioner applied for probation, which was denied by the MeTC. His petition to the CA for certiorari was dismissed due to procedural defects and on the merits. The case was brought to the Supreme Court seeking probation despite having appealed.
Legal Issue Presented
The pivotal legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to probation after having appealed his conviction, which was subsequently affirmed with a reduction of penalty.
Nature and Purpose of Probation
Probation is a special privilege granted by the State to qualified convicts who demonstrate repentance and willingness to be rehabilitated. It is not a right but an act of grace meant to serve the societal interest and to avoid delays in the administration of justice. The Probation Law expressly prohibits the grant of probation to an accused who has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended).
Applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Law
Section 4 clearly mandates that an application for probation must be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal, and no application shall be entertained if an appeal has been perfected. The purpose is to prevent speculation or opportunism, where an accused would appeal in the hope of acquittal yet seek probation after the conviction is affirmed on appeal. Jurisprudence, notably Llamado v. Court of Appeals, affirms this strict interpretation and precludes probation after appeal.
Interpretation of Multiple Prison Terms for Probation Eligibility (Section 9)
Section 9 of the Probation Law disqualifies offenders sentenced to serve a maximum term exceeding six years from probation. The Court ruled that multiple prison terms should be considered separately, not summed up, to determine probation eligibility. Since petitioner’s individual penalties were all within the probationable limit, he was eligible for probation after conviction by the MeTC. The legislative use of “maximum” rather than “total” indicates intent to assess each sentence independently.
Effect of Petitioner’s Appeal on Probation Application
The petitioner appealed the conviction notwithstanding his eligibility for probation under the MeTC decision. By doing so, he relinquished his right to immediately apply for probation. His appeal was primarily directed at asserting innocence rather than merely reducing penalties to qualify for probation. The appeal’s perfection removes the possibility of probation during its pendency or afterward, regardless of whether the penalties were reduced on appeal.
Timeliness of Probation Application
Petitioner’s application for probation was filed after the RTC decision became final and a warrant of arrest was issued, i.e., beyond the statutory period allowed for filing under the Probation Law. The application was thus untimely and properly denied by the trial court. The law requires probation applications to be made within the appeal period, and filing after finality and execution order is impermissible.
The Court’s Holding and Reasoning
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of petitioner’s application for probation on three grounds:
- Probation is a privilege, not a right, and courts must apply the law as written; the language of Section 4 is clear and unambiguous that no probation is allowed after a perfected appeal.
- Petitioner was eligible for probation after the MeTC verdict because individual penalties were within the six-year limit; thus, there was no necessity to appeal to reduce the sentence.
- The probation application was filed out of the required period, making it procedurally barred.
The Court emphasized the mutual exclusivity between appeal and probation to prevent manipulation of the justice system by convicted persons.
Dissenting Opinion Overview
Justice Mendoza dissented, arguing that where the sentence on appeal is reduced so that the accused becomes e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 108747)
313 Phil. 241 EN BANC | G.R. No. 108747 | April 06, 1995
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Pablo C. Francisco, then President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. Company, was charged with multiple counts of grave oral defamation for insults hurled at his employees on four different days in April 1980.
- Petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, Branch 61, in four out of five criminal cases and sentenced to multiple prison terms ranging from one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional "in each crime committed on each date of each case." He was ordered to pay exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
- Petitioner was acquitted in one of the five cases due to the persistent failure of the offended party to appear and testify.
- Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 59, which affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to a straight penalty of eight (8) months imprisonment in each case, citing a mitigating circumstance based on passion or obfuscation due to petitioner’s anger.
- Petitioner failed to file a timely appeal from the RTC decision, which thus became final and executory.
- Upon issuance of a warrant of arrest for execution of sentence, petitioner filed an application for probation which was denied by the MeTC on the grounds that petitioner had already perfected an appeal from his conviction, contrary to the explicit prohibition of the Probation Law.
- Petitioner sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition on procedural grounds, failure to move for reconsideration, and on the basis that probation was properly denied since the application was filed late and because an appeal had been perfected.
- Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
Legal Issue
- Whether petitioner Pablo C. Francisco is entitled to probation after having perfected an appeal from his conviction, particularly where the penalties imposed upon him by the RTC were probationable due to their reduction from the MeTC's original sentence.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of probation and ruled that petitioner is not eligible to avail of probation after perfecting an appeal from his conviction.
- Probation is a special privilege, not a right; it must be availed of at the first available opportunity and not after an appeal is taken.
- The Probation Law, as amended by P.D. 1990, expressly prohibits the grant or even consideration of probation applications if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
- Multiple prison terms imposed for multiple offenses in separate counts should not be aggregated to disqualify a petitioner from probation; rather, each prison term must be considered separately.
- Even if penalty terms are summed up, in this case the modified RTC sentence, when multiplied by the total counts, exceeds the allowable probationable maximum of six (6) years, still disqualifying petitioner.
- The petitioner’s appeal was motivated by his plea of innocence, not simply to reduce the sentence to probationable levels, thereby precluding him from subsequently applying for probation.
- Petitioner’s application for probation was also filed beyond the prescribed period within which an application must be made—namely, within the period to perfect an appeal.
Detailed Analysis on Probation Law and Its Application
- Nature of Probation:
- Probation is an act of