People v. Evangelista
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Grildo S. Tugonon was charged with frustrated homicide for stabbing Roque T. Bade. The information alleged that Tugonon, with intent to kill, stabbed Bade, inflicting injuries that would have been fatal but for timely medical intervention. The trial court found Tugonon guilty, appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental convicted Tugonon and sentenced him to one year of prision correccional in its minimum period. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 2 months of arresto mayor to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional. Subsequently, the RTC set the case for repromulgation. Tugonon then filed a petition for probation with the RTC, which was initially ordered for a probation officer's interview. Despite the Probation Officer's recommendation for denial, the RTC granted Tugonon's application for probation. 3. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting probation. The core issue is whether Tugonon, having appealed his conviction from the trial court to the Court of Appeals, was eligible for probation after the latter court affirmed his conviction. The People contend that under Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law, an application for probation cannot be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The petition seeks to set aside the RTC's order granting probation.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion by granting private respondent's application for probation despite the fact that he had appealed from the judgment of his conviction by the trial court. Whether the amendment introduced by P.D. No. 1990 to Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, which prohibits the entertainment or granting of probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, applies to the private respondent's case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The order of April 23, 1993, of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental (Branch 21) granting probation to private respondent Grildo S. Tugonon is SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion by granting probation after an appeal: The Court held that the RTC did commit a grave abuse of discretion. Prior to the amendment by P.D. No. 1990, an accused could apply for probation even after appealing, provided the sentence was not yet being served. However, P.D. No. 1990 was enacted precisely to prevent offenders from appealing their convictions in the hope of acquittal and only applying for probation if they failed. The law, as amended, clearly states that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The filing of the application is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. On the applicability of P.D. No. 1990: The Court found that P.D. No. 1990, which took effect on January 15, 1986, applied to the private respondent's case. He filed his application for probation on December 28, 1992, well after the amendment's effectivity. The amendment's purpose was to stop the practice of appealing probationable sentences to secure acquittal, and then seeking probation. The Court rejected the argument that a distinction should be made between meritorious and unmeritorious appeals, as the law makes no such distinction. The private respondent's original and modified sentences were probationable, and his appeal meant he was taking a chance, which the amendment sought to curb. The RTC's interpretation that the appeal referred to was not from the trial court's judgment was a misreading of the law; the law refers to the appeal from the judgment of conviction by the trial court.
Main Doctrine
An application for probation filed after perfecting an appeal from the judgment of conviction is proscribed by Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1990, which explicitly states that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, and that the filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.