G.R. No. 221428 February 13, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RENATO GALUGA y WAD-AS, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Renato Galuga was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of rape against AAA, a 12-year-old minor. The prosecution evidence established that on April 16, 2002, AAA, after an altercation with her father, went to a public park. Accused-appellant approached her, introduced himself, and after she refused his invitations, forcibly pulled her to a closed parlor in the marketplace. There, he threatened her with a knife, removed her clothes, and had carnal knowledge against her will. Witnesses Borja and Garlitos saw accused-appellant pulling AAA and reported to her parents, leading to his apprehension outside a restaurant where AAA was found crying and disheveled.
The defense presented a different version, claiming accused-appellant merely consoled AAA, bought her bread, and was suddenly assaulted by her father. The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and convincing, convicting accused-appellant and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, and during pendency, filed a motion to withdraw his appeal to instead apply for probation under Republic Act No. 10707.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant may be allowed to withdraw his appeal to avail of probation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the motion to withdraw the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit statutory prohibition under the Probation Law (Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended). Section 4 of the law expressly disqualifies an accused who has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Jurisprudence consistently holds that appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. An application for probation presupposes a final conviction that has not been appealed.
Here, accused-appellant had already availed himself of the remedy of appeal twice: first to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. His conviction was not yet final. Allowing a withdrawal of the appeal at this stage to apply for probation would contravene the clear mandate of the law, which aims to prevent an accused from speculatively appealing a conviction and then resorting to probation if the appeal fails. The Court emphasized that the law is unambiguous; a contrary interpretation would undermine its purpose. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction affirmed, and the monetary awards were adjusted in line with prevailing jurisprudence, imposing interest on all damages until fully paid.