GR 108747; (April, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108747. April 6, 1995.
PABLO C. FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pablo C. Francisco was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati of four counts of grave oral defamation for uttering profanities against his employees. He was sentenced to a prison term of one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional for each crime. Insisting on his innocence, Francisco appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC affirmed his conviction but appreciated the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, thereby reducing his sentence to a straight penalty of eight months imprisonment for each case. After the RTC decision became final, Francisco, before being arrested, filed an application for probation with the MeTC. The MeTC denied his application, citing the ruling in Llamado v. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Pablo C. Francisco is still qualified to avail of probation after having appealed his conviction from the MeTC to the RTC.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Bellosillo, denied the petition and held that Francisco was no longer eligible for probation. The legal logic is anchored on the clear and mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Probation Law (P.D. 968), as amended by P.D. 1990. The law explicitly states that “no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.” The filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal; conversely, the perfection of an appeal constitutes a waiver of the privilege to apply for probation. This provision embodies a definitive choice imposed upon the accused: to either appeal the conviction or apply for probation. They are mutually exclusive remedies. Francisco’s act of appealing his conviction to the RTC, regardless of his stated intent to merely reduce the penalty to qualify for probation, constituted a waiver and a forfeiture of his right to apply for probation. The law is designed to prevent an accused from speculating on the outcome of an appeal—using an appeal as a test and then resorting to probation as an “escape hatch” if the appeal fails. This would negate the purpose of probation as a privilege for penitent offenders who demonstrate contrition by accepting the judgment at the first instance. Since Francisco perfected his appeal, he is statutorily barred from later seeking probation.