G.R. No. 114343. December 28, 1995.
ANGELO CAL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FE ALBANO MADRID, et al. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelo Cal was convicted of illegal recruitment and sentenced to imprisonment. After the promulgation of the judgment, he was immediately committed to jail despite having posted bail. The following day, assisted by counsel, he filed an application for probation. Almost two weeks later, he filed a motion to withdraw this application and instead filed a notice of appeal, alleging he had filed for probation hastily due to threats and without proper legal consultation. The trial court conducted a hearing and found his allegations baseless, noting he was properly advised by his lawyer and chose probation to avoid detention and further expenses. The court denied his motion to withdraw the application.
The trial court subsequently denied his notice of appeal, ruling that by availing of probation, he could no longer appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial. Cal elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the trial court erred in ordering his immediate confinement after promulgation and in denying his motion to withdraw his probation application and his notice of appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Cal’s motion to withdraw his application for probation and in rejecting his subsequent notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court found that any error in the immediate commitment order was rendered moot by Cal’s subsequent application for probation. By applying for probation, he accepted the judgment of conviction, rendering it final and immediately executory, thereby curing any defect in the premature commitment.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the denial of the motion to withdraw the probation application. The trial court’s order denying the withdrawal and rejecting the appeal partook of the nature of an order granting probation, which, under the Probation Law, is not appealable. Probation is a privilege, and its grant rests on the court’s discretion; it is not automatic. The Court distinguished this case from Yusi v. Morales, where withdrawal was allowed due to exceptional circumstances like lack of proper counsel during the application. Here, Cal was fully assisted by his counsel when he applied, and the trial court found he made a conscious and informed choice to seek probation to avoid incarceration. Allowing withdrawal under these circumstances would make a mockery of the Probation Law. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s orders.