You are on page 1of 3

Name: GRANDE, Mhel Rose Camille G.

C/Y/S: BALM 4-A

ARNEL COLINARES
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182748
December 13, 2011
FACTS
Accused-appellant Arnel Colinares was charged with frustrated homicide for
hitting the head of the private complainant with a piece of stone. He alleged selfdefense but the trial court found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him
to suffer imprisonment from 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum
probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to 6 years, Arnel did not
qualify for probation.
Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals, invoking self-defense and,
alternatively, seeking conviction for the lesser crime of attempted homicide with the
consequent reduction of the penalty imposed on him. His conviction was affirmed
by the CA.
ISSUES
Whether or Not Colinares is entitled to conviction for a lower offense of
attempted homicide and a reduced probationable penalty, and still applies for
probation on remand of the case to the trial court?
RULING:
YES, Arnel may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial
court.
With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for
probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. The Court finds that his maximum
jail term should only be 2 years and 4 months. If the Court allows him to apply for
probation because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide
whether or not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the full
circumstances of his case.
It remains that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when
they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that
privilege. But as to his sentence, the stiff penalty that the trial court erroneously
imposed on him did not give him any choice.

Name: GRANDE, Mhel Rose Camille G.


C/Y/S: BALM 4-A
DOMINGO LAGROSA AND OSIAS BAGUIN
VS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 152044.
July 3, 2003
FACTS:
The Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City rendered a decision against the
petitioners Lagrosa and Baguin for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended,
for having in their possession forest products without the requisite permits. They
were sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the
decision was denied by the trial court.
Thereafter, they appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the
appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners, with the modification as to
the penalty imposed, which was reduced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to one (1) year,
eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days of Prision Correccional, as maximum.
Said decision became final and executory. Petitioners filed an Application for
Probation with the trial court but it was denied. Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Hence, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals but it the latter only affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners should be allowed to apply for probation even
if they had already appealed the decision of the trial court?
RULING:
NO. It held that probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a
term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with
the trial court. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal. Under Section 9 (a) of the Probation Law, offenders who are sentenced to
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years are disqualified from
seeking probation.
Uponpon interposing an appeal, petitioner should be precluded from seeking
probation. By perfecting their appeal, petitioners ipso facto relinquished the
alternative remedy of availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is simply
to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who, although

already eligible, does not at once apply for probation, but did so only after failing in
his appeal.