Case Summary (G.R. No. 84850)
Sentencing and Appeal Process
Llamado was sentenced to one year of prisión correccional and fined P200,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent. He was also ordered to reimburse respondent Gaw the amount of P186,500.00 plus court costs. Immediately after the verdict was read, Llamado’s counsel orally declared an intent to appeal, prompting the RTC to forward the case records to the Court of Appeals (CA) on the same day. The CA set a deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief, which was extended multiple times until November 18, 1987, but Llamado failed to file the brief within this period.
Petition for Probation and Court Actions
On November 30, 1987, Llamado, now with new counsel, filed a Petition for Probation under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968, as amended. The RTC declined to accept the petition since the case records had already been forwarded to the CA. Llamado then submitted a "Manifestation and Petition for Probation" to the CA on November 16, 1987, requesting that the CA either grant probation or remand the case to the RTC for consideration of the probation petition. He also requested that execution of the deadline to file the Appellant’s Brief be suspended pending resolution of his probation petition. Later, on March 3, 1988, Llamado formally withdrew his appeal conditionally upon probation approval.
Comments and Resolution by the Court of Appeals
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment favoring probation, while private respondent Gaw opposed it, prompting a series of pleadings. The CA, through Judge Magsino, denied the probation petition on June 17, 1988, with a dissenting opinion by Judge Bellosillo and a concurring opinion by Judge Santiago. Upon motion for reconsideration, the CA affirmed its denial on August 23, 1988, with a further dissent from Judge Bellosillo.
Issue on the Application for Probation and Relevant Legal Framework
The central issue was whether Llamado’s probation petition, filed after notice of appeal, forwarding of case records to the CA, and issuance of filing deadlines but before the actual filing of the Appellant’s Brief, was barred under P.D. No. 968, as amended.
P.D. No. 968, the Probation Law of 1976, originally allowed courts to grant probation "after conviction and sentencing" and “at any time,” even after an appeal had been taken, with the filing of a probation application deemed a waiver or automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
Amendments to the Probation Law and Their Implications
P.D. No. 1257 (December 1, 1977) narrowed probation applications to the period "after conviction and sentencing but before the defendant begins to serve his sentence," requiring notification to the prosecutor and maintaining that the filing waived or withdrew an appeal. Probation had to be acted upon per the appellate court decision if filed after appellate judgment.
P.D. No. 1990 (October 5, 1985) further restricted the period to "within the period for perfecting an appeal" and explicitly prohibited probation applications if the defendant had already perfected an appeal. The language regarding automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal upon filing was removed. Probation applications must be made to the trial court, and orders granting or denying probation are not appealable.
Interpretation of "Period for Perfecting an Appeal"
The Court examined whether Llamado filed his probation petition within the "period for perfecting an appeal." Under procedural laws (Section 39 of B.P. Blg. 129, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure), the period for perfecting an appeal is 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgment, and perfection occurs upon filing of a notice of appeal.
Llamado orally manifested his intent to appeal immediately after the verdict reading, a manifestation treated as a timely notice of appeal, thus constituting perfection of appeal well before his probation petition was filed.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Court’s Rejection
Llamado argued that the phrase "period for perfecting an appeal" in P.D. No. 1990 should not be restricted to the 15-day appeal period under procedural law. He invoked the "whereas" clauses of P.D. No. 1990, which aimed to prevent probation from being used to delay justice, as well as the rule of liberal construction in favor of the accused. He further contended that since the trial court had jurisdiction to grant probation, the CA erred by denying his petition instead of remanding it.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding:
- The operative language of Section 4 clearly referred to the established 15-day period for perfecting an appeal under procedural rules.
- The preamble ("whereas") claus
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84850)
Case Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioner Ricardo A. Llamado served as Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance Corporation.
- Along with Jacinto N. Pascual, Sr., President of the same corporation, Llamado was prosecuted for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
- The criminal case arose from the co-signing of a postdated check amounting to P186,500.00 payable to respondent Leon Gaw, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Jacinto N. Pascual, Sr. fled the country and thus, had no personal jurisdiction for conviction.
- Trial court convicted Llamado alone on March 10, 1987, sentencing him to one year of prision correccional, fine of P200,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and reimbursement to Gaw of P186,500.00 plus the cost of suit.
Procedural History and Appeals Process
- On March 20, 1987, petitioner orally manifested his intention to appeal immediately after the trial court’s decision was read.
- The trial court ordered the case records forwarded to the Court of Appeals the same day.
- The Court of Appeals issued a notice on July 9, 1987, to file the Appellant’s Brief within 30 days.
- Petitioner secured several extensions to file the Appellant’s Brief, with the last extension expiring on November 18, 1987.
- While the Appellant’s Brief was being finalized, petitioner engaged a new counsel and on November 30, 1987, filed a Petition for Probation with the Regional Trial Court invoking Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
- The trial court rejected the probation petition due to records being forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
- Petitioner then filed a “Manifestation and Petition for Probation” on November 16, 1987, with the Court of Appeals, requesting either the grant of probation or remand to the trial court for consideration.
- On March 3, 1988, petitioner formally withdrew his appeal conditioned on the approval of probation.
- The Office of the Solicitor General raised no objection to probation; private respondent opposed it.
- The Court of Appeals, through a Resolution dated June 17, 1988, denied the probation petition.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied on August 23, 1988.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals and adoption of the dissenting opinion.
Issue Presented
- Whether petitioner’s application for probation, filed after notice of appeal, after the case records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, and after extensions to file the Appellant’s Brief but before actual filing thereof, is barred under P.D. No. 968, as amended.
Overview of Relevant Laws – P.D. No. 968 and its Amendments
Original Provision (P.D. No. 968, 1976):
- Trial court may grant probation after conviction and sentencing, upon defendant’s application at any time.
- Probation may be granted whether sentence included imprisonment or fine alone.
- Application for probation to be filed with the trial court, with notice to appellate court if an appeal has been taken.
- Filing of application deemed to be waiver or automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
- Order granting or denying probation is not appealable.
Amendment by P.D. No. 1257 (1977):
- Probation application