PABLO FRANCISCO, Petitioner vs.

CA and THE HON. MAXIMO CONTRERAS, Respondents

EN BANC G.R. NO. 108747 | April 6, 1995

Justice Bellosillo

Topic: Application of Penalties; Probation Law (Article 48)

FACTS:

Petitioner's woes started when as President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans
Company he failed to control his outburst. Thus for humiliating his employees he
was accused of multiple grave oral defamation in five (5) separate Informations
instituted by five (5) of his employees, each Information charging him with gravely
maligning them. He was found guilty of grave oral defamation in four of the five
cases, while he was acquitted in Crim. Case no. 105208.

Not satisfied, the petitioner elevated his case to the RTC, which affirmed his
conviction. Accordingly, petitioner was sentenced "in each case to a STRAIGHT
penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS imprisonment . . . . " After he failed to interpose an
appeal therefrom the decision.of the RTC became 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.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the 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.

RULING:

NO, Petitioner is no longer eligible for probation.

First. Probation is a mere privilege, not a right. The grant of probation rests solely
upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of
organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused.

Second. At the outset, the penalties imposed by the MeTC were already
probationable. Hence, there was no need to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to
within the probationable period.

Third. Petitioner appealed to the RTC not to reduce or even correct the penalties
imposed by the MeTC, but to assert his innocence. The cold fact is that petitioner
appealed his conviction to the RTC not for the sole purpose of reducing his penalties
to make him eligible for probation – since he was already qualified under the MeTC
Decision – but rather to insist on his innocence. In doing so, petitioner is disqualified
in availing probation.
Case Digest
Fourth. The application for probation was filed way beyond the period allowed by
law. This is vital way beyond the period allowed by law and crucial. From the
records it is clear that the application for probation was filed "only after a warrant
for the arrest of petitioner had been issued . . . (and) almost two months after (his)
receipt of the Decision" 22 of the RTC.

Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, clearly mandates that “no application shall
be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction”. In the case at bat, the petitioner perfected an appeal upon
raising it to the RTC. The law, simply, does not allow probation after an appeal has
been perfected. Thus, the instant petition for review should be as it is hereby
DENIED.

PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:

Probation Law; Probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by convicts

who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated who manifest spontaneity,
contrition and remorse.—The law expressly requires that an accused must not have
appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accused—to wager on the result of his appeal—that
when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at
hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an
“escape hatch” thus rendering nugatory the appellate court’s affirmance of his
conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by
convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, who manifest
spontaneity, contrition and remorse.

Probation is a mere privilege, not a right.

The grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court which is to be
exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the
benefit of the accused.

An appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is
taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear and express
mandate of Sec. 4 of the Probation Law.

The multiple prison terms are distinct from each other and if none of the terms
exceeds the limit set out in the Probation Law, i.e., not more than six (6) years, then
he is entitled to probation, unless he is otherwise specifically disqualified.

Case Digest