P.D.

968 Probation Law

SUPREME COURT RULING

Francisco Vs. CA
G.R. No. 108747 | April 6, 1995
PABLO C. FRANCISCO, petitioner.
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Accordingly, considering that prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and

probation as mutually exclusive remedies, and petitioner appealed from
his conviction by the MeTC although the imposed penalties were already
probationable, and in his appeal, he asserted only his innocence and did
not even raise the issue of the propriety of the penalties imposed on
him, and finally, he filed an application for probation outside the period
for perfecting an appeal granting he was otherwise eligible for
probation, the instant petition for review should be as it is hereby
DENIED.

Respondents:
COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS
__________________________________________________________________
Nature of Case:
Petition of Certiorari (CA)
BRIEF:
Pablo Francisco was accused of multiple grave oral defamation by his
employees. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati found him guilty of 4
of the 5 cases filed sentenced him to a prison term of 1 year and 1 day
to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional in each crime committed
on each date of each case, as alleqed in the information(s)".
Francisco then elevated the case to the RTC in which they affirmed his
conviction but appreciated in his favor a mitigating circumstance
analogous to passion or obfuscation. Petitioner was sentenced "in each
case to a STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS imprisonment
Francisco failed to make an appeal on the RTCs decision making it final.
The case was then set for execution of judgment by the MeTC which, as
a consequence, issued a warrant of arrest. But before he could be
arrested petitioner filed an application for probation which the MeTC
denied.
He went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which was also denied.
ISSUE/S of the CASE:
Whether petitioner is still qualified to avail of probation even after
appealing his conviction to the RTC which affirmed the MeTC except with
regard to the duration of the penalties imposed. (NO).

Ratio decidendi:
1. Petitioner violated Sec. 4 of the Probation Law clearly mandates
that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted
if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
conviction;"
2. Petitioner misunderstood the prison sentence held by the MeTC
was not qualified for probation. It penalty as probationable and
there was no need to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to
within the probationable period. Multiple prison terms should not
be added up. Consequently, Francisco lost his right to probation
when he appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The law
considers appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.
3.

the accused appealed to the RTC not to reduce or even correct

the penalties imposed by the MeTC, but to assert his innocence;

4. the application for probation was filed way beyond the period
allowed by law, in this case was filed "only after a warrant for the
arrest of petitioner had been issued . . . (and) almost two months
after (his) receipt of the Decision" of the RTC.

CONCUR: Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin and Regalado, JJ.