Garbo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Artile Garbo and Almabella Gardose, public school teachers, were charged with and convicted of direct assault by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty and a fine of P1,000.00 each. They were also convicted of grave oral defamation in a separate case, with petitioner Garbo fined P200.00. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for direct assault but modified the sentence by imposing subsidiary imprisonment for the fine. Petitioners applied for probation, which the RTC granted. The private respondent, Erlinda Artuz, moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The CA, in CA-G.R. 17647, annulled the grant of probation to Artile Garbo due to her prior conviction for grave oral defamation, but affirmed the grant for Almabella Gardose. Subsequently, the CA, in CA-G.R. CR 03109, clarified its earlier decision, directing the execution of the sentence in the direct assault case. Petitioners filed various motions and petitions, including a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. The RTC denied petitioners' motion to hold promulgation of decision in abeyance. The CA denied petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration, citing procedural grounds and the finality of its previous rulings. The Petition: The instant petition for certiorari seeks to annul the CA resolutions dated March 11, 1991, May 13, 1991, June 14, 1991, and June 28, 1991, and to rescind the warrant of arrest issued by the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the grant of probation to petitioner Almabella Gardose can still be questioned. Whether petitioner Artile Garbo is disqualified from the benefits of probation. Whether the CA resolutions directing the execution of the sentence in Criminal Case No. 937 are valid despite the prior grant of probation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA resolutions as regards petitioner Artile Garbo and set them aside as regards petitioner Almabella Gardose. The warrant of arrest for Almabella Gardose was dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the grant of probation to petitioner Almabella Gardose: The Court held that the grant of probation in favor of petitioner Almabella Gardose could no longer be questioned. The RTC initially granted probation, and when this order was appealed (CA-G.R. 17647), the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant for Gardose. This order became final and executory. Therefore, any subsequent order directing the execution of the sentence in Criminal Case No. 937 did not prejudice or nullify the previous final order granting Gardose's application for probation, as a final and executory decision can no longer be disturbed. On the disqualification of petitioner Artile Garbo from probation: The Court found that petitioner Artile Garbo was disqualified from the benefits of probation. She had been convicted of grave oral defamation in Criminal Case No. 1558 and sentenced to pay a fine of P200.00, which she paid. The Court noted that she applied for probation after PD 1990, which amended PD 968, had taken effect. Section 4 of PD 968, as amended by PD 1990, provides that probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. However, Section 9 thereof states that the benefits of probation shall not be extended to those "who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable." Since Garbo had already served her sentence of fine by paying it at the time she applied for probation, she was disqualified. The Court also noted that the CA's decision in CA-G.R. 17647 nullifying the grant of probation to Artile Garbo had become final and executory. On the validity of CA resolutions directing execution of sentence: The Court ruled that the CA resolutions directing the execution of the sentence in Criminal Case No. 937 did not prejudice or nullify the previous final order granting petitioner Gardose's application for probation. This is because a decision or order that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed. The Court emphasized that once a judgment or order has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest, grounded on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at a definite date fixed by law. The Court also noted that petitioner Artile Garbo was concluded by the final and executory decision of the CA nullifying the grant of probation to her.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory judgment or order can no longer be disturbed, and issues therein should be laid to rest, grounded on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at a definite date.