Enrique ALMERO vs People

Facts: Petitioner is accused for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries. After private
respondents reserved the right to institute a separate action for damages, trial ensued. On 8 January 2007, the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Petitioner filed an Application for Probation on 7 September 2007, reasoning that he was informed of his conviction only
upon being served the warrant for his arrest. 2 Prosecutor Analie Velarde opposed his application on the ground that he was
known to be uncooperative, habitually absent, and had even neglected to inform the court of his change of address. On 22
February 2007, the MTC denied his application, prompting petitioner to file a special civil action with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC).
The RTC found that the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment without first ruling on his Formal
Offer of Exhibits since, technically, petitioner had not yet rested his case. It also ruled that the promulgation of judgment
was similarly tainted with grave abuse of discretion, because petitioner was not present at the time, in violation of Section
6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
The CA ruled that the RTC should have confined itself to determining whether or not the MTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners application for probation. the trial court erred in taking cognizance of supplemental
grounds assailing the judgment of conviction, because an application for probation is a waiver of the right to appeal from
the judgment of conviction and effectively renders the same final. The CA ruled that even assuming petitioner failed to be
present at the promulgation of judgment, he had no one but himself to blame for failing to inform the MTC of his change of
address.
HELD: Anent the first issue, petitioner argues that in criminal cases, the offended party is the State, and that private
complainants interest is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Petitioner's application for probation purportedly did
not involve the civil aspect of the case.
We agree with the submission of the respondents. While the present petition originated from a criminal proceeding, what
petitioner filed with the RTC was a special civil action, in which he himself impleaded private respondents. He cannot now
belatedly change his stance to the prejudice of private respondents, who would otherwise be deprived of recourse in a civil
action they did not initiate. In any case, this Court has consistently ruled that private parties may be clothed with sufficient
personality if the facts show that the ends of substantial justice would be better served, and if the issues in the action
could be determined in a more just, speedy and inexpensive manner.
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and
encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state of time, effort and expenses
to jettison an appeal. 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 he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch" thus
rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction.
Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale for the treatment of appeal and
probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed legal positions. An accused applying
for probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment. The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part
of an accused for the crime which led to the judgment of conviction. 18 This was the reason why the Probation Law was
amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is
probationable for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid.
Similarly, in the present case, petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the judgment, or apply for
probation, which is necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. 20 While he did not file an appeal before applying for
probation, he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of probation.
In so doing, he attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, which seeks to make appeal and
probation mutually exclusive remedies.
Petitioner applied for probation beyond the reglementary period, yet the trial court still allowed the filing before ultimately
denying it for lack of merit. Regarding this delay and the other defects imputed by petitioner to the RTC, we concur with
the findings of the CA:
(W)e find that public respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying appellees application for probation.
Granted that appellee had not received the notice of the January 8, 2007 decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 06-6531,
it appears from the record that appellee had no one but himself to blame for the procedural quagmire he subsequently
found himself in.
Petition for lack of merit.

Domingo LAGROSA VS PEOPLE

Facts: Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin guilty of violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended (The Revised
Forestry Code), for having in their possession forest products without the requisite permits. The trial court sentenced them
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the
decision[4] was denied by the trial court.
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.[7] The decision became final
and executory on April 12, 2000.
On August 29, 2001, petitioners filed an Application for Probation with the trial court, [8] which, as mentioned at the outset,
was denied. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the trial court. Hence, petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
HELD: The law that is at the heart of this controversy is Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as the Probation Law, as
amended by P.D. 1990.
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.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
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.
Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for probation even if they had already appealed the decision of
the trial court. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to the general rule which excludes an
accused who has appealed his conviction from the benefits of probation. In the case at bar, the trial court sentenced
petitioners to a maximum term of eight years, which was beyond the coverage of the Probation Law. They only became
eligible for probation after the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court and reduced the maximum term of
the penalty imposed on them to one year, eight months and twenty-one days.
There is no question that petitioners appealed from the decision of the trial court. This fact alone merits the denial of
petitioners Application for Probation. Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and having applied for
probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed their conviction, petitioners were clearly precluded from the
benefits of probation.
However, petitioners now ask us not to apply the letter of the law, claiming that their situation should be considered an
exception to the rule. Their petition is without merit.
The fact that petitioners put the merits of their conviction in issue on appeal belies their claim that their appeal was
prompted by what was admittedly an incorrect penalty. Certainly, the protestations of petitioners connote a profession of
guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not simply assail the propriety of the penalties imposed.xxx 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. [19]
ART 100
People vs Benito Satorre
Facts: the accused Benito Satorre and Paulino Rondina were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double
murder and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two murders, to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased Carlos Espina and Loreto Silva.
Both accused appealed to this Court.c On February 13, 1976, a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court of this Court, was
received from the Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Prisons. This is to inform that Honorable Court that defendant-

appellant PAULINO RONDINA for Double Murder, died of Peptic Ulcer, Bleeding, on December 11, 1975 in the New Bilibid
Prison, Hospital, Muntinlupa.
The Solicitor General filed his comment. Notwithstanding the discrepancy, it appears that the person mentioned in the
death certificate and in the records of the case are one and the same person: appellant Paulino Rondina. And, recommends
that the case against the appellant Paulino Rondina be dismissed, citing the case of People vs. Alison.
In the cited case, this Court ruled that:
... The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having been established, and considering that there is as yet no final
judgment in view of the pendency of the appeal, the criminal and civil liability of the said accused-appellant Alison was
extinguished by his death.
WHEREFORE, in accordance with the prayer of the Solicitor General, the case against the appellant, the late Paulino
Rondina, is dismissed with costs de oficio.