Você está na página 1de 4

Colinares

vs.
People of the Philippines
Facts:
Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated
homicide by the RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from
two years and four months of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day
of prison mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under
the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation. On appeal by
Colinares, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTCs decision. Unsatisfied with the
Court of Appeals decision, petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court and took the
position that he should be entitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a
new penalty on him that makes his offense probationable, which was strongly opposed
by the Solicitor General reiterating that under the Probation Law, no application for
probation can be entertained once the accused has perfected his appeal from the
judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found that Colinares is guilty of
attempted homicide and not of frustrated homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for probation on remand of the case to
the trial court

Ruling:
Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Colinares may apply for probation upon remand of
his case to the RTC. Ordinarily, an accused would no longer be entitled to apply for
probation, he having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for
frustrated homicide. But in this case the Supreme Court ruled to set aside the judgment
of the RTC and found him only liable for attempted homicide, if the Supreme Court
follows the established rule that no accused can apply for probation on appeal, the
accused would suffer from the erroneous judgment of the RTC with no fault of his own,
therefore defying fairness and equity.

SORIANO v. CA G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999


FACTS:
Petitioner Ronald Soriano was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting
to homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property after being involved in
a vehicular accident which killed Isidrino Daluyong. His application for probation was
granted and among the terms and conditions imposed were: (a) he shall meet his family
responsibilities; (b) devoting to a specific employment or pursuing a prescribed secular
study or vocational training; (c) indemnify the heirs of the victim Daluyong in the amount
of P98,560. A motion to cancel his probation was filed due to his failure to indemnify
the heirs of the victim
and a supplemental motion alleging petitioners commission of another crime while he
was
awaiting arraignment. The trial court denied the motion and instead directed petitioner to
submit a program of payment of the civil liability imposed on him. Based on the
information provided by the heirs of Daluyong, petitioner still failed to satisfy his civil
liability. Soriano was made to explain his non-compliance and to submit his program of
payment immediately otherwise he would be cited for contempt. For continuous failure
to comply with the orders, his probation was revoked on October 1994 for his failure to:
(a) meet his family responsibilities; (b) engage in a specific employment, (c) satisfy his
civil liability to the heirs of the victim, and (d) cooperate with his program of
supervision. Petitioner filed a special civil action for
certiorari
with the Court of Appeals claiming that respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion in holding petitioner contempt and
revoking his probation. The CA dismissed the petition holding that Sorianos
stubborn unwillingness to comply with the orders of the trial court shows his refusal to
reform himself and to correct a wrong.
A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the revocation of petitioners probation is lawful and proper

RULING:
YES. Revocation of probation is lawful and proper. Probation is not an absolute right. It
is a mere privilege whose grant rests upon the discretion of the trial court subject to
certain terms and conditions. Having the power to grant probation, the trial court also
has the power to revoke it in a proper case and under appropriate circumstances. Since
petitioner admitted in violating the terms and conditions of his probation, he cannot
anymore assail the revocation of his probation. Soriano claims that his non-compliance
was due to his poor financial condition and that it was impossible for him to formulate a
program as he only relies on his parents for support and he was in no position to comply
with the same. He even questioned the constitutionality of the requirement imposed as
this harped on his alleged poverty.

This requirement is NOT violative

PABLO C. FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE


MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS G.R. No. 108747. April 6, 1995
FACTS:

Pablo Francisco was accused of multiple grave oral defamation by his employees. The Metropolitan
Trial Court of Makati sentenced him of prision correccional in its minimum period in each crime
committed on each date of each case. Francisco then elevated the case to the RTC in which they
sentenced him only of eight straight months for appreciating mitigating circumstances.

Francisco failed to make an appeal on the RTCs decision making it final. The MTC issued a warrant
of arrest, but before Francisco was to be arrested, he filed an application for probation which the MTC
denied. He went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which was also denied.
ISSUE: Whether Pablo Francisco is still qualified to avail of probation.

RULING:

No. Petitioner is no longer eligible for probation. First, Francisco violated Sec.4 of the Probation Law
in which no application for probation shall be entertained after the judgement is final.

Second, Francisco misunderstood when he thought that his prison sentence held by the MTC was not
qualified for probation. Multiple prison terms should not be added up. Consequently, Francisco lost
his right to probation when he appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The law considers appeal and
probation mutually exclusive remedies.

Third, Franciscos appeal to the RTC was not for reducing his penalties but for his assertion of his
innocence. The Probation Law prevent opportunism when petitioners apply for probation when their
appeal was dismissed.

Lastly, the application for probation was filed way beyond the period allowed by law.

Você também pode gostar