Cases:

1. GR No. 184874 October 9, 2009

2. Madali vs People GR No. 180380 August 4, 2009
3. Llave vs People GR No. 166040 April 26, 2006
4. People vs Salcedo GR No. 186523 June 22, 2011
5. Atizado vs People GR No. 173822 October 13, 2010
6. Sierra va People GR No. 182941 July 3, 2009
7. Ortega vs People GR No. 151085 August 20, 2008
8. People vs Jacinto GR No. 182239 March 16, 2011
9. Peopla vs Mantalaba GR No. 186227 July 20, 2011
10. Fajardo vs CA GR No. 128508 February 1, 1999
11. Rura vs Leopena

L-69810

February 19, 1985

FACTS:
PD No. 968 Sec 9 par (c)
Petitioner Teodulo Rura was accused, tried and convicted of 5 courts of estafa
committed on different dates in the MCTC of Bohol. In each criminal case the
sentence was 3 months and 15 days.
Rura appealed to the RTC but it was denied and affirmed the decision in
MCTC.
When the case was remanded to the court of origin for execution of
judgment, Rura applied for probation.
The application was opposed by probation officer of Bohol on the ground that
Rura is disqualified under Section 9 (c) of PD No. 968.
Probation and Motion for reconsideration were both denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is disqualified from probation?
HELD:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner. When he applied for probation he
had no previous conviction by Final Judgment. When he applied for probation
the only conviction against him was the subject of his application. The statute
relates "previous" to the date of conviction, not to the date of the commission
of the crime.
Petition for probation is granted.
12. Pablo vs Castillo

GR No. 125108

13. Santos To vs Cruz-Pano

L-55130

August 3, 2000
17,1983

FACTS:
Petitioner was convicted by judge of the CFI of Rizal ( Quezon City ) of the
crime estafa for having issued a bouncing check for P5,000.00, and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from seven years and eight months
of prision mayor as minimum, to 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor, as
maximum.
Petitioner appealed to the CA which reduced the penalty to 1 year and 1 day
of prision correctional as minimum to one year and 8 months as maximum.
Upon the CA's decision becoming final, petitioner not having therefrom, he
filed a petition for probation with respondent judge, who, despite the
favorable recommendatioin of the Probation Office, denied the petition on July
4, 1980, on the following grounds:
a. to grant probation to petitioner will depreciate te seriousness of the
offense committed &
b. petitioner is not a penitent offender
Motion for reconsideration was DENIED by the respondent judge despite the
recommendation for its approval by the Probation Office.
Solicitor General granted the probation. PD No. 968 Sec 9.
HELD:
The court ruled that the liberality with which the Probation Law should be
applied in favor of the applicant for its benefits affords the better means of
achieving the purpose of the law (Balleta Jr. vs Hon Leviste).
Solicitor General recommends granting of the instant petition for probation.
Probation Granted.

14. People vs Evangelista 253 SCRA 714

FACTS:
Private respondent Grildo S. Tugonan was charged with frustrated homicide in

the RTC of Misamis Oriental, CDO. Private Respondent stabbed Roque T. Bade.
Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the RPC.
After the trial he was found guilty & sentenced to 1 year of prision correcional
in its minimum period and ordered to pay to the offended party P5,000.00 for
medical expense, without subsidiary imprisonment and the costs.
The RTC appreciated in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstances of
incomplete self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court, the indeterminate penalty of
2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum to 2 years and 4 months of prision
correccional, as maximum.
Private Respondent petition for probation since:

1. All qualifications are present and none for the disqualification under PD
No. 968

2. CA reduced penalty imposed on him by the trial court

3. CA took no action on a petition for probation which he had earlier filed
with it so that the petition could be filed with the trial court

4. Trial Court's decision, 2 mitigating circumstances were appreciated in

his favor

5. Santos To vs. Pano, the SC upheld the right of the accused to probation
notwithstanding the fact that he had appealed from his conviction by
the trial court
Recommended denial, when the private respondent could have then applied
for probation on the ground that by appealing the sentence of the Trial Court,
when e could have then applied for probation, Private Respondent waived the
right to make his application.
In the present case, original sentence imposed on Private Respondent by the
Trial Court ( 1 year of imprisonment) was probationable and there was no
reason for Private Respondent not to have filed his application for probation.
Whereas, in Pano case, penalty only became probationable after it had been
reduced as a result of the appeal.
HELD:
PD No. 1990, for the accused to take his chances on appeal by allowing
probation to be granted even after an accused had appealed his sentence
and failed to obtain an acquittal, just so long as he had not yet started to
serve the sentence
to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of
conviction even if the sentence is probationable for the purpose of

securing an acquittal and applying for probation only if the accused

fails in his bid (PD No. 1990, January 15, 1986)
"Probation was not intended as an escape hatch and should not be used to
obstruct and delay the administration of justice, but should availed of at the
first opportunity by offenders who were willing to be refounded and
rehabilitated."
Appeal after the judgment of PD 1990.
Probation DENIED.

15. Salgado vs CA 189 SCRA 304

16. Palo vs Militante 184 SCRA 395
17. Baclayon vs Mutia 129 SCRA 148
18. Budlong vs Apalisoc 122 SCRA 135
19. Francisco vs CA April 6, 1995
20. Bala vs Martinez 181 SCRA 459
21. Santos vs CA December 2, 1999