GR L 65004; (November, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65004 November 29, 1983
PERFECTO DEL ROSARIO, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE HON. ALFREDO A. ROSERO, Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch XXVI, Naga City, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Perfecto Del Rosario, Jr. was charged with theft. Detained due to inability to post bail, he pleaded guilty upon arraignment. On May 11, 1983, the respondent judge promulgated a decision sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty. Immediately after reading the sentence that same afternoon, the judge issued a commitment order, and the petitioner was returned to jail. On that very day, the petitioner prepared an application for probation, which was received by the court on May 18, 1983.
However, on May 20, 1983, the respondent judge denied the probation application. The judge reasoned that the sentence had become final and executory on May 11, 1983, when the petitioner was returned to jail, which constituted the commencement of service of sentence. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly denied the application for probation on the ground that the judgment of conviction became final and executory upon the petitioner’s return to jail immediately after the promulgation of the sentence.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the respondent judge’s orders. The Court held that the judgment of conviction did not become final merely because the petitioner was returned to jail after the promulgation of the sentence. The petitioner had fifteen days from promulgation within which to appeal or to file an application for probation, as provided by the Rules of Court. His return to jail was not the commencement of service of his sentence but a continuation of his preventive detention due to his continued inability to post bail.
The respondent judge committed a grave error by issuing the commitment order precipitately and by effectively amending the rules without authority. The Court emphasized that probation laws should be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused to promote rehabilitation and decongest jails. Given that the petitioner’s maximum sentence was only one year and one day, and considering his prolonged detention since his arrest, the Court, adopting the Solicitor General’s recommendation, ordered his immediate release unless held on other valid charges.