Probation; appeal and probation are mutually exclusive

remedies. Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the
accused, the rationale for the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually
exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed legal positions.

An accused applying for probation is deemed to

have accepted the judgment. The application for
probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an
accused for the crime which led to the judgment of
conviction. This was the reason why the Probation
Law was amended: precisely 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
the probation only if the accused fails in his
bid.Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. People of the Philippines, et
al, G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014.

lawphil.net

G.R. No. 188191

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
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.

RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ:
We resolve the petition filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by Enrique
Almero y Alcantara from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 26 September
2008 and Resolution dated 29 May 2009 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 103030.1
THE MTC RULING IN CRIMINAL CASE No. 96-6531
Petitioner is the accused in Criminal Case No. 96-6531 for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and multiple physical injuries. After private respondents reserved the right to
institute a separate action for damages, trial ensued. On 8 January 2007, the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Petitioner filed an Application for Probation on 7 September 2007, reasoning that he was
informed of his conviction only upon being served the warrant for his arrest.2 Prosecutor
Analie Velarde opposed his application on the ground that he was known to be uncooperative,
habitually absent, and had even neglected to inform the court of his change of address. On 22
February 2007, the MTC denied his application, prompting petitioner to file a special civil
action with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). While his first Petition raised the sole issue of the
denial of his application for probation, he filed a Supplemental Petition,3 which a) assailed
the validity of the promulgation of the 8 January 2007 judgment; and b) impleaded private
complainants Mirasol Bartolome, Clarita P. Matias, Rosendo P. Matias and Antonio P. Matias.
THE RTC RULING IN SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0012
In his supplemental Petition, petitioner stated that upon close scrutiny, he discovered that the
judgment itself was premature and flawed, because the MTC never ruled upon his Formal
Offer of Exhibits.4 The RTC found that the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
rendering judgment without first ruling on his Formal Offer of Exhibits since, technically,
petitioner had not yet rested his case. It also ruled that the promulgation of judgment was
similarly tainted with grave abuse of discretion, because petitioner was not present at the
time, in violation of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. Without addressing the issue
of probation, the dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
The judgment promulgated on 22 February, 2007 is hereby SET ASIDE AND NULLIFIED
and the case is remanded to the Municipal Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte for further
proceedings.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City or any person acting in his behalf
to release immediately petitioner ENRIQUE ALMERO Y ALCANTARA from detention by
virtue of the property bond posted by him for his provisional liberty in Criminal Case No. 966531, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause or causes.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.5

THE CA RULING
The CA ruled that the RTC should have confined itself to determining whether or not the
MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners application for probation.
Since no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is
available against the denial of probation, a Rule 65 petition is clearly the appropriate remedy.
However, the trial court erred in taking cognizance of supplemental grounds assailing the
judgment of conviction, because an application for probation is a waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of conviction and effectively renders the same final. The CA ruled that
even assuming petitioner failed to be present at the promulgation of judgment, he had no one
but himself to blame for failing to inform the MTC of his change of address.6
On the argument that private respondents possessed no legal personality to represent the State
in a criminal case, the CA held that petitioner himself impleaded them in the certiorari
petition before the RTC. The CA also found that petitioner filed his application for probation
only on 7 September 2007, or more than one month after he received notice of the judgment
of conviction. Inasmuch as the grant of probation rests solely on the discretion of the court,
the denial thereof cannot be considered grave abuse, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the trial courts appealed January 28, 2008 Decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered ordering the DISMISSAL of
appellees petition for certiorari.7
Petitioner comes before this Court, assigning the following errors:
I. The Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that private
complainants have personality to appeal the 28 January 2008 Decision of the
RTC.
II. The Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that the RTC
reversibly erred in nullifying petitioners judgment of conviction.
III. The Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that petitioner is
not entitled to probation.8
OUR RULING
The Petition lacks merit.
Anent the first issue, petitioner argues that in criminal cases, the offended party is the State,
and that private complainants interest is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom.
Petitioner's application for probation purportedly did not involve the civil aspect of the case.
Heirs of the Late Francisco Abueg v. Court of Appeals cited by the CA allegedly cannot
apply, since it does not even discuss the right of private complainants to interpose an appeal.
In the Comment9 it filed, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) reiterated that what
petitioner filed with the RTC was a petition for certiorari, which is a special civil action. It
cannot be considered an appeal in a criminal case over which only the State has an interest,
but an appeal in a civil action from which private persons can appeal in the event of an
adverse outcome. Private respondents, in their Comment,10 argued that the CA correctly

applied Abueg, which is on all fours with the present case. In Abueg, the accused was
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for crashing
against and killing Francisco Abueg. Instead of filing an appeal, the accused applied for
probation. After the CA affirmed the grant of probation, the Supreme Court entertained and
acted upon the petition for certiorari filed by the victims heirs.11
We agree with the submission of the respondents. While the present petition originated from a
criminal proceeding, what petitioner filed with the RTC was a special civil action, in which
he himself impleaded private respondents. He cannot now belatedly change his stance to the
prejudice of private respondents, who would otherwise be deprived of recourse in a civil
action they did not initiate. In any case, this Court has consistently ruled that private parties
may be clothed with sufficient personality if the facts show that the ends of substantial justice
would be better served, and if the issues in the action could be determined in a more just,
speedy and inexpensive manner.
In Narciso vs. Sta. Romana-Cruz,12 citing People v. Calo, Jr.,13 the Supreme Court ruled:
While the rule is, as held by the Court of Appeals, only the Solicitor General may bring or
defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or the
State in criminal proceeding pending in this Court and the Court of Appeals, the ends of
substantial justice would be better served, and the issues in this action could be determined in
a more just, speedy and inexpensive manner, by entertaining the petition at bar. As an
offended party in a criminal case, private petitioner has sufficient personality and a valid
grievance against Judge Adaos order granting bail to the alleged murderers of his (private
petitioners) father.14 (Citations omitted.)
Furthermore, in Paredes v. Gopengco, it was held that parties in criminal cases have sufficient
personality as "person(s) aggrieved" to file the special civil action of prohibition and
certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 in line with the underlying spirit of the liberal
construction of the rules, to wit:
Furthermore, as offended parties in the pending criminal case before petitioner judge, it
cannot be gainsaid that respondents have sufficient interest and personality as person(s)
aggrieved by petitioner judges ruling on his non-disqualification to file the special civil
action under sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. Recently in line with the underlying spirit of a
liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote their object, as against the
literal application of Rule 110, section 2, we held, overruling the implication of an earlier
case, that a widow possesses the right as an offended party to file a criminal complaint for the
murder of her deceased husband.15
Petitioners second and third arguments are brought by an erroneous understanding of the
nature of probation and shall be discussed jointly.
Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency conferred by the
State, and may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of
probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. It is to be exercised primarily for the
benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused.16
In Francisco v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. It

essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit
his liability and save the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law
expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail
of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused to wager
on the result of his appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal he now
applies for probation as an "escape hatch" thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's
affirmance of his conviction.17
Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale for
the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on
diametrically opposed legal positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have
accepted the judgment. The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of
an accused for the crime which led to the judgment of conviction.18 This was the reason why
the Probation Law was amended: precisely 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 the probation only if the accused fails in his bid.19
Similarly, in the present case, petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the
judgment, or apply for probation, which is necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to
appeal.20 While he did not file an appeal before applying for probation, he assailed the
validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of
probation. In so doing, he attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990,
which seeks to make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.
The assignment of errors in the Petition before us reflects the diametrically opposed positions
taken by accused petitioner. On the one hand, he bewails the defects committed by the trial
court during the promulgation of the judgment, thus casting doubt on the judgment itself. Yet
in the same breath, he persists in his application for probation, despite the waiver and
admission of guilt implicit in any procedure for probation precisely the unhealthy wager the
law seeks to prevent.
Petitioner applied for probation beyond the reglementary period, yet the trial court still
allowed the filing before ultimately denying it for lack of merit. Regarding this delay and the
other defects imputed by petitioner to the RTC, we concur with the findings of the CA:
(W)e find that public respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying
appellees application for probation. Granted that appellee had not received the notice of the
January 8, 2007 decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 06-6531, it appears from the record
that appellee had no one but himself to blame for the procedural quagmire he subsequently
found himself in. In denying appellees motion for reconsideration of the September 18, 2007
denial of the application for probation, public respondent distinctly ruled as follows:
x x x. (T)he application has been filed out of time as accused himself admitted in the
motion.1wphi1 He blames Atty. Evan D. Dizon, his former counsel, for not notifying the
court of his change of address but Atty. Dizon himself had been trying to contact accused
since 2001 even before he filed his formal offer of evidence since all notices sent to the
accuseds given address have been returned to this court since 2001. If it is true that he moved
to Cavite only in 2003, why were said notices returned with notations unknown,
unclaimed, or moved?21

This Court will not countenance pleas for liberality in adverse outcomes caused by the
negligence and evasiveness of the parties themselves.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we deny the instant Petition for lack of merit. The
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 103030 dated 26 September
2008 and 29 May 2009 are hereby AFFIRMED, respectively.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice, Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 31-46 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and
concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Ricardo R.
Rosario.
2 Id. at 33.
3 Id. at 67; Dated 28 December 2007.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 64-70; Penned by Presiding Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer and dated
28 January 2008.
6 Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, sec. 6, par. 3 and 4 states: "The proper clerk
of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or
warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the

decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or

escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known
address.
"In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be
made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving
him a copy thereof at his last known address or through his counsel."
7 Rollo, p. 45.
8 Id. at 17.
9 Id. at 118-131.
10 Id. at 104-117.
11 G.R. No. 96803, 17 February 1993, 219 SCRA 78.
12 385 Phil. 208 (2000).
13 264 Phil. 1007 (1990).
14 Supra note 12 at 222.
15 Paredes v. Gopengco, 140 Phil. 81 (1969).
16 Bala v. Martinez, 260 Phil. 488 (1990).
17 Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 313 Phil. 241, 254-255 (1995).
18 Cal v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 914 (1995).
19 People v. Judge Evangelista, 324 Phil. 80, 86-87 (1996).
20 Presidential Decree No. 968, Sec. 4, as amended by P.D. 1990 in order to
make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.
21 Rollo, p. 43.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation