Title
Llamado vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 84850
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1989
Petitioner, convicted under BP 22, sought probation after perfecting appeal; SC denied, citing Probation Law's clear bar on post-appeal applications.
probation
violation
treasurer
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84850)

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

Trial court conviction and sentence: decision dated 10 March 1987; sentence imposed included one year prision correccional, fine of P200,000.00 (with subsidiary imprisonment), and reimbursement of P186,500.00 to Gaw.
Oral notice of appeal: petitioner orally manifested appeal on 20 March 1987; records were ordered forwarded to the Court of Appeals that same day.
Court of Appeals notice: CA issued notice to file Appellant’s Brief on 9 July 1987; petitioner obtained multiple extensions, the last expiring 18 November 1987.
Petition for probation filings: petitioner sought advice from new counsel and filed a Petition for Probation in the RTC (date stated as 30 November 1987 in the record); petitioner also filed with the CA a “Manifestation and Petition for Probation” dated 16 November 1987 enclosing a copy of the RTC petition and requesting either grant of probation by the CA or remand to the RTC.
Withdrawal of appeal: petitioner filed a “Manifestation and Motion” dated 3 March 1988 formally withdrawing his appeal, conditioned on approval of his Petition for Probation.
Court of Appeals action: CA denied the Petition for Probation by Resolution dated 17 June 1988 (majority), with a dissent by Justice Bellosillo and concurring opinion by Justice Santiago; CA denied reconsideration on 23 August 1988.
Supreme Court disposition: petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Applicable Law and Procedural Rules

Primary statute: Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976), Section 4 (grant of probation).
Relevant amendments to Section 4: P.D. No. 1257 (1 December 1977) and P.D. No. 1990 (5 October 1985). The language of Section 4 evolved materially with these amendments; the 1985 P.D. No. 1990 version narrowed the time for filing an application for probation to “within the period for perfecting an appeal” and added an express proviso barring probation if the defendant “has perfected an appeal.”
Appeal perfection rules: the period for perfecting an appeal from an RTC judgment is fifteen (15) days under Section 39 of B.P. Blg. 129, Section 19 of the Interim Rules implementing B.P. Blg. 129, and the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (specifically Section 5 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court). Section 3(a) of Rule 122 establishes that such appeal is taken/perfected by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and serving a copy on the People of the Philippines.

Central Legal Issue Presented

Whether an application for probation filed after a defendant has given notice of appeal, after records have been forwarded to the Court of Appeals, and after the CA has issued a notice to file appellant’s brief (and extensions have been obtained) but before the actual filing of the appellant’s brief, is barred under Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 as amended by P.D. No. 1990.

Statutory Framework and Its Effect on the Case

Before P.D. No. 1257, Section 4 permitted the trial court to grant probation “at any time” after conviction and sentence, and filing an application was deemed a waiver or automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. P.D. No. 1257 then limited the time to “after conviction and sentence but before he begins to serve his sentence,” and expressly provided that if the application was filed on or after the appellate court’s judgment, it should be acted upon by the trial court on the basis of the appellate judgment. P.D. No. 1990 (1985) materially narrowed the filing window further: probation could be granted only if the defendant applied “within the period for perfecting an appeal,” and the proviso declared that no application for probation shall be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal. The 1990 amendment also removed the clause treating an application as automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal, which is consistent with the new restriction that application must precede perfection of an appeal.

Court’s Analysis of “Period for Perfecting an Appeal” and “Perfected an Appeal”

The Court treated “period for perfecting an appeal” and the concept of “perfected an appeal” as terms rooted in procedural law and concluded that these expressions refer to the fifteen‑day perfection period established by the statutory and procedural authorities cited above. The Court reasoned that the phrase “period for perfecting an appeal” cannot sensibly mean some vague “earliest opportunity” but must mean the concrete fifteen‑day period recognized in the Rules and statutes governing appeals. The Court observed that whereas clauses of P.D. No. 1990, which mention the “first opportunity” to avail of probation, are not part of the operative language and therefore cannot alter the clear operative terms of Section 4. Consequently, the “period for perfecting an appeal” was read in light of existing procedural definitions of perfection of appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments and the Court’s Responses

Petitioner argued (1) that the amendment’s preambular language demonstrated a different intent and should be interpreted more favorably to him; (2) that the amendment should not apply to him because he filed his petition for probation at the “earliest opportunity” and withdrew his appeal; and (3) that the probation statute should be liberally construed in favor of the accused because it favors the accused in criminal cases. The Court rejected these contentions:

  • It held that whereas clauses do not control the operative terms of a statute and cannot alter a clear statutory command. The operative text of Section 4 plainly speaks of a concrete period for perfecting appeals.
  • The Court emphasized that the Probation Law is not a penal statute and that courts must not invoke “liberal interpretation” to disregard the clear words chosen by the law‑maker. Where statutory language is plain, judges must apply it as written.
  • The Court also rejected the argument that the CA lacked jurisdiction to act on the petition for probation or should have remanded the case to the RTC. The Court reasoned that once the appeal was perfected, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter, and the CA had authority to resolve collateral matters presented while exercising its appellate jurisdiction.

Application of the Law to the Facts and Determination of Appeal Perfection

The Court found that petitioner orally manifested his intention to appeal in open court at the promulgation of judgment on 20 March 1987. The Court treated that oral manifestation as at least equivalent to a written notice of appeal and therefore as the act that perfected the appeal under the procedural rules. Because petitioner had thereby perfected his appeal within the applicable perfection period, his subsequent application for probation (filed after that point) fell outside the window allowed by the P.D. No. 1990 ve

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms