G.R. No. 110898 - People vs. Evangelista

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110898)

Factual Background

Private respondent Grildo S. Tugonon was charged with frustrated homicide for stabbing Roque T. Bade on May 26, 1988, causing a penetrating but nonperforating laceration of the posterior peritoneum. The information alleged that the accused performed all acts of execution which would have produced homicide but for timely medical attendance that prevented death. After trial, the RTC found him guilty, imposed one year of prision correccional in its minimum period, and ordered payment of P5,000 for medical expenses. The RTC credited the circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender as mitigating.

Trial Court and Appellate Disposition

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of two months arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months prision correccional as maximum. The Court of Appeals' decision was rendered January 23, 1992 and was authored and concurred in as set forth in the petition record.

Probation Application and Administrative Proceedings

While the case remained under post-conviction processes, private respondent filed an application for probation with the trial court on December 28, 1992. The RTC set the case for repromulgation on January 4, 1993, and ordered private respondent to report for interview with the Provincial Probation Officer on February 2, 1993, directing that the officer submit a report within sixty days. The Chief Probation and Parole Officer, Isias B. Valdehueza, recommended denial of probation on February 18, 1993, on the ground that private respondent had perfected an appeal from the trial court and therefore waived the right to apply; he distinguished Santos To v. Pano on the ground that in that case the sentence became probationable only after appeal. Valdehueza reiterated his recommendation on April 16, 1993.

RTC's Grant of Probation and Prosecution's Challenge

Despite the probation officer's recommendation, the RTC set aside the recommendation and granted private respondent’s application for probation in its order dated April 23, 1993. The prosecution thereupon filed the present petition alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation to a defendant who had perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction of the trial court.

Issue Presented

The single issue presented to this Court was whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation to private respondent notwithstanding his having perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction of the trial court.

Legal Framework on Grant of Probation

The Court reviewed the relevant statutory framework. Prior to amendment, P.D. No. 968 allowed the trial court to grant probation after conviction but before the accused began service of sentence, and contemplated that an application filed after an appeal might be treated as a waiver or automatic withdrawal of the appeal; the pre-amendment provision also allowed action on an application filed after the appellate judgment. The 1985 amendatory decree, P.D. No. 1990, took effect January 15, 1986, and expressly provided that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, that the filing of an application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, and that applications already filed at the time of effectivity were exempted.

Parties' Contentions

The prosecution argued that the RTC erred in granting probation because private respondent had perfected an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and therefore, under P.D. No. 1990, was precluded from obtaining probation. Private respondent contended that a distinction should obtain between meritorious and unmeritorious appeals, or that the rule should not apply where the appellate court affirmed conviction or where mitigating circumstances warranted probation; he relied on Santos To v. Pano to support the availability of probation notwithstanding an appeal in certain circumstances.

The Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that under the pre-amendment provisions an accused could in effect "take his chances" on appeal and later seek probation if the appeal failed, and that Santos To v. Pano applied that regime because the sentence became probationable only after reduction on appeal. The Court then emphasized that P.D. No. 1990 expressly changed the law to bar any application for probation by a defendant who had perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, and to deem the filing of an application a waiver of appeal. The Court rejected private respondent’s attempt to distinguish meritorious from unmeritorious appeals, noting that the statute makes no such distinction and that a truly meritorious appeal would result in acquittal rather than probation. The Court also clarified that th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 110898)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines filed the petition challenging the grant of probation by the Regional Trial Court.
Hon. Judge Antonio C. Evangelista was the respondent in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXI, RTC, Misamis Oriental.
Grildo S. Tugonon was the private respondent who had been convicted of frustrated homicide and sought probation.
The RTC granted probation to private respondent in its order dated April 23, 1993, which the prosecution then questioned before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court resolved the petition by setting aside the RTC order and thereby determining the proper legal rule on probation after appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on May 26, 1988 the accused stabbed Roque T. Bade with intent to kill, inflicting a penetrating nonperforating laceration of the posterior peritoneum.
The alleged acts were described as performing all acts of execution which would produce the crime of homicide but which did not produce it by reason of timely medical attendance.
The information charged the accused with violation of Article 249 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court found Grildo S. Tugonon guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to one year of prision correccional in its minimum period.
The trial court ordered private respondent to pay the offended party P5,000.00 for medical expenses and imposed the costs.
The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense in favor of the accused.

Appellate Proceedings

The Court of Appeals affirmed private respondent's conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of two months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum.
The Court of Appeals' decision was dated January 23, 1992 and was authored by Associate Justice Loma S. Lombos-dela Fuente with concurred opinions by Associate Justices Marigomen and Rasul.

Probation Application and Proceedings

Grildo S. Tugonon filed an application for probation with the trial court on December 28, 1992 after the Court of Appeals had acted on his appeal.
The RTC set the case for repromulgation on January 4, 1993 and ordered the private respondent to report for interview with the Provincial Probation Officer on February 2, 1993.
Chief Probation and Parole Officer Isias B. Valdehueza recommended denial of probation on February 18, 1993 and reiterated the recommendation on April 16, 1993 on the ground that the filing of an appeal waived the right to apply for probation.
The RTC set aside the Probation Officer's recommendation and granted probation in its April 23, 1993 order, prompting the prosecution's petition to the Supreme Court.

Statutory Framework

P.D. No. 968, as originally enacted, allowed the trial court to suspend execution of sentence and place a convicted defendant on probation if the application was filed before the defendant began to serve his sentence