G.R. No. 188191 , March 12, 2014
ENRIQUE ALMERO y ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIRASOL BARTOLOME, CLARITA P. MATIAS, ROSENDO P. MATIAS, and ANTONIO P. MATIAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique Almero y Alcantara was the accused in Criminal Case No. 96-6531 for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte. After private respondents reserved the right to file a separate civil action, trial proceeded. The MTC found petitioner guilty on January 8, 2007. Petitioner filed an Application for Probation on September 7, 2007, which the MTC denied on February 22, 2007. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), initially challenging only the denial of probation. He later filed a Supplemental Petition assailing the validity of the promulgation of the January 8, 2007 judgment, arguing that the MTC rendered judgment without first ruling on his Formal Offer of Exhibits and that he was not present at the promulgation. The RTC granted the petition, set aside the judgment, and remanded the case to the MTC. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that the RTC should have confined itself to determining whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying probation. The CA held that by applying for probation, petitioner waived his right to appeal the judgment of conviction. The CA also found that petitioner filed his probation application over a month after receiving notice of conviction and that his failure to attend promulgation was due to his own negligence in not informing the court of his change of address. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether private complainants have the legal personality to appeal the RTC Decision.
2. Whether the RTC erred in nullifying petitioner’s judgment of conviction.
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to probation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that private complainants have sufficient personality in the special civil action for certiorari. While the case originated from a criminal proceeding, petitioner himself impleaded private respondents in his certiorari petition before the RTC, which is a special civil action. The Court cited precedents (Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz and Paredes v. Gopengco) establishing that offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient interest as “persons aggrieved” to file or participate in special civil actions under Rule 65, especially when substantial justice is better served.
2. On the second and third issues, the Court ruled that petitioner cannot simultaneously question the validity of his conviction and apply for probation. Probation is a privilege, not a right, and its grant rests solely on the court’s discretion. Under the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended), appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. An application for probation is deemed an admission of guilt and a waiver of the right to appeal. Petitioner attempted to circumvent this by assailing the conviction in a supplemental petition while seeking probation, which is not allowed. The Court also upheld the CA’s finding that petitioner’s failure to attend the promulgation was due to his own negligence in not updating his address with the court.
The Petition was denied for lack of merit.