2014 Villareal v. People

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 151258. December 1, 2014.]
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 154954. December 1, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO ALMEDA,
DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNEL ANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE
MONTECILLO, VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL,
SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO, JAIME MARIA
FLORES II, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE
VERDADERO, ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE FERNANDEZ,
AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN, PERCIVAL D.
BRIGOLA, PAUL ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS KARL B. PEREZ,
RENATO BANTUG, JR., ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, and
RONAN DE GUZMAN, respondents.
[G.R. No. 155101. December 1, 2014.]
FIDELITO DIZON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
[G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080. December 1, 2014.]
GERARDA H. VILLA, petitioner, vs. MANUEL LORENZO

ESCALONA II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO
CRUZ SARUCA, JR., and ANSELMO ADRIANO, respondents.
RESOLUTION
SERENO, C.J : p
We are asked to revisit our Decision in the case involving the death of Leonardo
"Lenny" Villa due to fraternity hazing. While there is nothing new in the
arguments raised by the parties in their respective Motions for Clarication or
Reconsideration, we nd a few remaining matters needing to be claried and
resolved. Some of these matters include the eect of our Decision on the nality
of the Court of Appeals judgments insofar as respondents Antonio Mariano
Almeda (Almeda), Junel Anthony D. Ama (Ama), Renato Bantug, Jr. (Bantug), and
Vincent Tecson (Tecson) are concerned; the question of who are eligible to seek
probation; and the issue of the validity of the probation proceedings and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
concomitant orders of a court that allegedly had no jurisdiction over the case.
Before the Court are the respective Motions for Reconsideration or Clarication
led by petitioners People of the Philippines, through the Oce of the Solicitor
General (OSG), and Gerarda H. Villa (Villa); and by respondents Almeda, Ama,
Bantug, and Tecson (collectively, Tecson et al.) concerning the Decision of this
Court dated 1 February 2012. 1 The Court modied the assailed judgments 2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 15520 and found respondents
Fidelito Dizon (Dizon), Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The
modication had the eect of lowering the criminal liability of Dizon from the
crime of homicide, while aggravating the verdict against Tecson et al. from slight
physical injuries. The CA Decision itself had modied the Decision of the Caloocan
City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121 nding all of the accused therein
guilty of the crime of homicide. 3
Also, we upheld another CA Decision 4 in a separate but related case docketed as
CA-G.R. S.P. Nos. 89060 & 90153 and ruled that the CA did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it dismissed the criminal case against Manuel Escalona
II (Escalona), Marcus Joel Ramos (Ramos), Crisanto Saruca, Jr. (Saruca), and
Anselmo Adriano (Adriano) on the ground that their right to speedy trial was
violated. Reproduced below is the dispositive portion of our Decision: 5
WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 155101 nding
petitioner Fidelito Dizon guilty of homicide is hereby MODIFIED and SET
ASIDE IN PART. The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954 nding
Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and
Vincent Tecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries is also
MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART. Instead, Fidelito Dizon, Antonio
Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent
Tecson are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide dened and penalized under Article 365
in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby
sentenced to suer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as maximum. In addition, accused are
ORDERED jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Lenny Villa civil
indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000, and moral damages in the
amount of P1,000,000, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the
rate of 12% from the date of the nality of this Decision until satisfaction.
Costs de ocio. caIACE
The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954, acquitting Victorino et al., is

hereby AFFIRMED. The appealed Judgments in G.R. Nos. 178057 &
178080, dismissing the criminal case led against Escalona, Ramos,
Saruca, and Adriano, are likewise AFFIRMED. Finally, pursuant to Article
89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the Petition in G.R. No. 151258 is hereby
dismissed, and the criminal case against Artemio Villareal deemed
CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives for possible consideration of the
amendment of the Anti-Hazing Law to include the fact of intoxication and
the presence of non-resident or alumni fraternity members during hazing
as aggravating circumstances that would increase the applicable
penalties.
SO ORDERED.
To refresh our memories, we quote the factual antecedents surrounding the

present case: 6
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila
University School of Law signied their intention to join the Aquila Legis
Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). They were Caesar "Bogs" Asuncion,
Samuel "Sam" Belleza, Bienvenido "Bien" Marquez III, Roberto Francis
"Bert" Navera, Geronimo "Randy" Recinto, Felix Sy, Jr., and Leonardo
"Lenny" Villa (neophytes).
On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were met by some

members of the Aquila Fraternity (Aquilans) at the lobby of the Ateneo
Law School. They all proceeded to Rufo's Restaurant to have dinner.
Afterwards, they went to the house of Michael Musngi, also an Aquilan,
who briefed the neophytes on what to expect during the initiation rites.
The latter were informed that there would be physical beatings, and that
they could quit at any time. Their initiation rites were scheduled to last for
three days. After their "brieng," they were brought to the Almeda
Compound in Caloocan City for the commencement of their initiation.
Even before the neophytes got o the van, they had already received
threats and insults from the Aquilans. As soon as the neophytes alighted
from the van and walked towards the pelota court of the Almeda
compound, some of the Aquilans delivered physical blows to them. The
neophytes were then subjected to traditional forms of Aquilan "initiation
rites." These rites included the "Indian Run," which required the neophytes
to run a gauntlet of two parallel rows of Aquilans, each row delivering
blows to the neophytes; the "Bicol Express," which obliged the neophytes
to sit on the oor with their backs against the wall and their legs
outstretched while the Aquilans walked, jumped, or ran over their legs;
the "Rounds," in which the neophytes were held at the back of their pants
by the "auxiliaries" (the Aquilans charged with the duty of lending
assistance to neophytes during initiation rites), while the latter were being
hit with st blows on their arms or with knee blows on their thighs by two
Aquilans; and the "Auxies' Privilege Round," in which the auxiliaries were
given the opportunity to inict physical pain on the neophytes. During this
time, the neophytes were also indoctrinated with the fraternity principles.
They survived their rst day of initiation.
On the morning of their second day 9 February 1991 the neophytes

were made to present comic plays and to play rough basketball. They
were also required to memorize and recite the Aquila Fraternity's
principles. Whenever they would give a wrong answer, they would be hit
on their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the Aquilans revived the
initiation rites proper and proceeded to torment them physically and
psychologically. The neophytes were subjected to the same manner of
hazing that they endured on the rst day of initiation. After a few hours,
the initiation for the day ocially ended.
After a while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity members Fidelito

Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be
Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be
reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially
refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he reopened
the initiation rites. The fraternity members, including Dizon and Villareal,
then subjected the neophytes to "paddling" and to additional rounds of
physical pain. Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was so
strong it sent him sprawling to the ground. The neophytes heard him
complaining of intense pain and diculty in breathing. After their last
session of physical beatings, Lenny could no longer walk. He had to be
carried by the auxiliaries to the carport. Again, the initiation for the day
was ocially ended, and the neophytes started eating dinner. They then
slept at the carport. DEcSaI
After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lenny's

shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed
these rumblings, as they thought he was just overacting. When they
realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans
started helping him. They removed his clothes and helped him through a
sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his condition worsened, the
Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on
arrival.
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was led against the following
35 Aquilans:
In Criminal Case No. C-38340(91)

1. Fidelito Dizon (Dizon)
2. Artemio Villareal (Villareal)

3. Efren de Leon (De Leon)
4. Vincent Tecson (Tecson)

5. Junel Anthony Ama (Ama)
6. Antonio Mariano Almeda (Almeda)
7. Renato Bantug, Jr. (Bantug)

8. Nelson Victorino (Victorino)
9. Eulogio Sabban (Sabban)

10. Joseph Lledo (Lledo)
11. Etienne Guerrero (Guerrero)

12. Michael Musngi (Musngi)
13. Jonas Karl Perez (Perez)
14. Paul Angelo Santos (Santos)

15. Ronan de Guzman (De Guzman)
16. Antonio General (General)

17. Jaime Maria Flores II (Flores)
18. Dalmacio Lim, Jr. (Lim)
19. Ernesto Jose Montecillo (Montecillo)
20. Santiago Ranada III (Ranada)
21. Zosimo Mendoza (Mendoza)

22. Vicente Verdadero (Verdadero)
23. Amante Purisima II (Purisima)

24. Jude Fernandez (J. Fernandez)
25. Adel Abas (Abas)

26. Percival Brigola (Brigola)
In Criminal Case No. C-38340
1. Manuel Escalona II (Escalona)

2. Crisanto Saruca, Jr. (Saruca)
3. Anselmo Adriano (Adriano)

4. Marcus Joel Ramos (Ramos)
5. Reynaldo Concepcion (Concepcion)

6. Florentino Ampil (Ampil)
7. Enrico de Vera III (De Vera)
8. Stanley Fernandez (S. Fernandez)

9. Noel Cabangon (Cabangon)
Twenty-six of the accused Aquilans in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91)

were jointly tried. On the other hand, the trial against the remaining nine
accused in Criminal Case No. C-38340 was held in abeyance due to
certain matters that had to be resolved rst.
On 8 November 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in Criminal

Case No. C-38340(91), holding the 26 accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, penalized with reclusion
temporal under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. A few weeks after
the trial court rendered its judgment, or on 29 November 1993, Criminal
Case No. C-38340 against the remaining nine accused commenced anew.
acADIT
On 10 January 2002, the CA in (CA-G.R. No. 15520) set aside the

nding of conspiracy by the trial court in Criminal Case No. C-
38340(91) and modied the criminal liability of each of the accused
according to individual participation. Accused De Leon had by then
passed away, so the following Decision applied only to the remaining 25
accused, viz.:
1. Nineteen of the accused-appellants Victorino, Sabban,
Lledo, Guerrero, Musngi, Perez, De Guzman, Santos, General,
Flores, Lim, Montecillo, Ranada, Mendoza, Verdadero,
Purisima, Fernandez, Abas, and Brigola (Victorino et al.)
were acquitted, as their individual guilt was not established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Four of the accused-appellants Vincent Tecson, Junel

Anthony Ama, Antonio Mariano Almeda, and Renato Bantug,
Jr. (Tecson et al.) were found guilty of the crime of
slight physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of
arresto menor. They were also ordered to jointly pay the
heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000 as indemnity.
3. Two of the accused-appellants Fidelito Dizon and

Artemio Villareal were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code. Having found no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, the CA sentenced them to an
indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor to 17
years of reclusion temporal. They were also ordered to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Lenny Villa in the
sum of P50,000 and to pay the additional amount of
P1,000,000 by way of moral damages.
On 5 August 2002, the trial court in Criminal Case No. 38340 dismissed
the charge against accused Concepcion on the ground of violation of his
right to speedy trial. Meanwhile, on dierent dates between the years
2003 and 2005, the trial court denied the respective Motions to Dismiss
of accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. On 25 October 2006,
the CA in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 89060 & 90153 reversed the trial court's
Orders and dismissed the criminal case against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca,
and Adriano on the basis of violation of their right to speedy trial.
From the aforementioned Decisions, the ve (5) consolidated Petitions
were individually brought before this Court. (Citations omitted)
Motion for Partial Reconsideration

led by Petitioner Gerarda H. Villa
Petitioner Villa led the present Motion for Partial Reconsideration 7 in connection
with G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080 (Villa v. Escalona) asserting that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the criminal case against
Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano (collectively, Escalona et al.) in its assailed
Decision and Resolution. 8 Villa reiterates her previous arguments that the right
to speedy trial of the accused was not violated, since they had failed to assert
that right within a reasonable period of time. She stresses that, unlike their co-
accused Reynaldo Concepcion, respondents Escalona et al. did not timely invoke
their right to speedy trial during the time that the original records and pieces of
evidence were unavailable. She again emphasizes that the prosecution cannot be
faulted entirely for the lapse of 12 years from the arraignment until the initial
trial, as there were a number of incidents attributable to the accused themselves
that caused the delay of the proceedings. She then insists that we apply the
balancing test in determining whether the right to speedy trial of the accused
was violated.
Motion for Reconsideration led by
the OSG
The OSG, in its Motion for Reconsideration 9 of G.R. Nos. 155101 (Dizon v.
People) and 154954 (People v. Court of Appeals), agrees with the ndings of this
Court that accused Dizon and Tecson et al. had neither the felonious intent to kill
(animus intercendi) nor the felonious intent to injure (animus iniuriandi) Lenny
Villa. In fact, it concedes that the mode in which the accused committed the
crime was through fault (culpa). However, it contends that the penalty imposed
should have been equivalent to that for deceit (dolo) pursuant to Article 249
(Homicide) of the Revised Penal Code. It argues that the nature and gravity of
the imprudence or negligence attributable to the accused was so gross that it
shattered the ne distinction between dolo and culpa by considering the act as
one committed with malicious intent. It maintains that the accused conducted
the initiation rites in such a malevolent and merciless manner that it clearly
endangered the lives of the initiates and was thus equivalent to malice
aforethought. ETDHaC
With respect to the 19 other accused, or Victorino et al., the OSG asserts that
their acquittal may also be reversed despite the rule on double jeopardy, as the
CA also committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed Decision (CA-
G.R. No. 15520). The OSG insists that Victorino et al. should have been similarly
convicted like their other co-accused Dizon, Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson,
since the former also participated in the hazing of Lenny Villa, and their actions
contributed to his death.
Motions for Clarication or
Reconsideration of Tecson et al.
Respondents Tecson et al., 10 led their respective motions pertaining to G.R. No.
154954 (People v. Court of Appeals). They essentially seek a clarication as to
the eect of our Decision insofar as their criminal liability and service of sentence
are concerned. According to respondents, they immediately applied for probation
after the CA rendered its Decision (CA-G.R. No. 15520) lowering their criminal
liability from the crime of homicide, which carries a non-probationable sentence,
to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Tecson et al.
contend that, as a result, they have already been discharged from their criminal
liability and the cases against them closed and terminated. This outcome was
supposedly by virtue of their Applications for Probation on various dates in
January 2002 11 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, otherwise
known as the Probation Law. They argue that Branch 130 of Caloocan City
Regional Trial Court (RTC) had already granted their respective Applications for
Probation on 11 October 2002 12 and, upon their completion of the terms and
conditions thereof, discharged them from probation and declared the criminal
case against them terminated on various dates in April 2003. 13
To support their claims, respondents attached 14 certied true copies of their
respective Applications for Probation and the RTC Orders granting these
applications, discharging them from probation, and declaring the criminal case
against them terminated. Thus, they maintain that the Decision in CA-G.R. No.
15520 had already lapsed into nality, insofar as they were concerned, when
they waived their right to appeal and applied for probation.
ISSUES

I. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the case against
Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano for violation of their right to
speedy trial
II. Whether the penalty imposed on Tecson et al. should have
corresponded to that for intentional felonies
III. Whether the completion by Tecson et al. of the terms and conditions
of their probation discharged them from their criminal liability, and
closed and terminated the cases against them
DISCUSSION
Findings on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
Petitioner Gerarda H. Villa
As regards the rst issue, we take note that the factual circumstances and legal
assertions raised by petitioner Villa in her Motion for Partial Reconsideration
concerning G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080 have already been thoroughly considered
and passed upon in our deliberations, which led to our Decision dated 1 February
2012. We emphasize that in light of the nding of violation of the right of
Escalona et al. to speedy trial, the CA's dismissal of the criminal case against
them amounted to an acquittal, 15 and that any appeal or reconsideration thereof
would result in a violation of their right against double jeopardy. 16 Though we
have recognized that the acquittal of the accused may be challenged where there
has been a grave abuse of discretion, 17 certiorari would lie if it is convincingly
established that the CA's Decision dismissing the case was attended by a
whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It
must be shown that the assailed judgment constitutes "a patent and gross abuse
of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform a duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law; an exercise of
power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility; or
a blatant abuse of authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive the
court of its very power to dispense justice." 18 Thus, grave abuse of discretion
cannot be attributed to a court simply because it allegedly misappreciated the
facts and the evidence. 19
We have taken a second look at the court records, the CA Decision, and
petitioner's arguments and found no basis to rule that the CA gravely abused its
discretion in concluding that the right to speedy trial of the accused was violated.
Its ndings were suciently supported by the records of the case and grounded
in law. Thus, we deny the motion of petitioner Villa with nality.
Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration
led by the OSG
We likewise deny with nality the Motion for Reconsideration led by the OSG
with respect to G.R. Nos. 155101 (Dizon v. People) and 154954 (People v. Court
of Appeals). Many of the arguments raised therein are essentially a mere rehash
of the earlier grounds alleged in its original Petition for Certiorari. HEDSCc
Furthermore, we cannot subscribe to the OSG's theory that even if the act
complained of was born of imprudence or negligence, malicious intent can still be
appreciated on account of the gravity of the actions of the accused. We
emphasize that the nding of a felony committed by means of culpa is legally
inconsistent with that committed by means of dolo. Culpable felonies involve
those wrongs done as a result of an act performed without malice or criminal
design. The Revised Penal Code expresses thusly:
ARTICLE 365. Imprudence and Negligence. Any person who, by
reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suer the penalty
o f arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisin correccional in its
medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an
act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would
have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
xxx xxx xxx
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice,
doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those

cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor
the danger clearly manifest. (Emphases supplied.)
On the other hand, intentional felonies concern those wrongs in which a

deliberate malicious intent to do an unlawful act is present. Below is our
exhaustive discussion on the matter: 20
Our Revised Penal Code belongs to the classical school of thought. . . .
The identity of mens rea dened as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful
purpose or criminal intent is the predominant consideration. Thus, it
is not enough to do what the law prohibits. In order for an
intentional felony to exist, it is necessary that the act be
committed by means of dolo or "malice."
The term "dolo" or "malice" is a complex idea involving the elements of
freedom, intelligence, and intent. . . . . The element of intent on which
this Court shall focus is described as the state of mind
accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act. It refers to the
purpose of the mind and the resolve with which a person
proceeds. It does not refer to mere will, for the latter pertains to the
act, while intent concerns the result of the act. While motive is the
"moving power" that impels one to action for a denite result, intent is
the "purpose" of using a particular means to produce the result.
On the other hand, the term "felonious" means, inter alia, malicious,
villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose. With
these elements taken together, the requirement of intent in
intentional felony must refer to malicious intent, which is a
vicious and malevolent state of mind accompanying a forbidden
act. Stated otherwise, intentional felony requires the existence of dolus
malus that the act or omission be done "willfully," "maliciously," "with
deliberate evil intent," and "with malice aforethought." The maxim is actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the mind of
the person performing the act complained of is innocent. As is required
of the other elements of a felony, the existence of malicious intent
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
xxx xxx xxx

The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is
thus a vital ingredient in establishing the commission of the
intentional felony of homicide. Being mala in se, the felony of
homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo immediately
before or simultaneously with the iniction of injuries. Intent to
kill or animus intercendi cannot and should not be
inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such
intent. Furthermore, the victim's death must not have been the product
of accident, natural cause, or suicide. If death resulted from an act
executed without malice or criminal intent but with lack of
foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be
qualied as reckless or simple negligence or imprudence
resulting in homicide.
xxx xxx xxx

In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262
to 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the employment of physical
injuries must be coupled with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in
se, the existence of malicious intent is fundamental, since injury arises
from the mental state of the wrongdoer iniuria ex aectu facientis
consistat. If there is no criminal intent, the accused cannot be found
guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical injuries under the
Revised Penal Code, there must be a specic animus iniuriandi or
malicious intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or
well-being of a person, so as to incapacitate and deprive the
victim of certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt
act of inicting physical injuries per se merely satises the
elements of freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The
commission of the act does not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his
intentions are. aAHTDS
Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances that the mere iniction of

physical injuries, absent malicious intent, does not make a
person automatically liable for an intentional felony. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx

The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean, however,
that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal
liability. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed
by means of fault (culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault
when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Reckless imprudence or negligence consists of a voluntary act

done without malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury
or material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of
precaution or advertence on the part of the person committing it. In this
case, the danger is visible and consciously appreciated by the
actor. In contrast, simple imprudence or negligence comprises an act
done without grave fault, from which an injury or material damage ensues
by reason of a mere lack of foresight or skill. Here, the threatened harm
is not immediate, and the danger is not openly visible.
The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an

act is as follows: Would a prudent man in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes on the doer the
duty to take precaution against the mischievous results of the
act. Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
As we held in Gaid v. People, for a person to avoid being charged with
recklessness, the degree of precaution and diligence required varies with
the degree of the danger involved. If, on account of a certain line of
conduct, the danger of causing harm to another person is great, the
individual who chooses to follow that particular course of conduct is
bound to be very careful, in order to prevent or avoid damage or injury.
In contrast, if the danger is minor, not much care is required. It is thus
possible that there are countless degrees of precaution or diligence that
may be required of an individual, "from a transitory glance of care to the
most vigilant eort." The duty of the person to employ more or less
degree of care will depend upon the circumstances of each particular
case. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
We thus reiterate that the law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
existence of malicious intent or dolus malus before an accused can be adjudged
liable for committing an intentional felony.
Since the accused were found to have committed a felony by means of culpa, we
cannot agree with the argument of the OSG. It contends that the imposable
penalty for intentional felony can also be applied to the present case on the
ground that the nature of the imprudence or negligence of the accused was so
gross that the felony already amounted to malice. The Revised Penal Code has
carefully delineated the imposable penalties as regards felonies committed by
means of culpa on the one hand and felonies committed by means of dolo on the
other in the context of the distinctions it has drawn between them. The penalties
provided in Article 365 (Imprudence and Negligence) are mandatorily applied if
the death of a person occurs as a result of the imprudence or negligence of
another. Alternatively, the penalties outlined in Articles 246 to 261 (Destruction
of Life) are automatically invoked if the death was a result of the commission of
a forbidden act accompanied by a malicious intent. These imposable penalties are
statutory, mandatory, and not subject to the discretion of the court. We have
already resolved and the OSG agrees that the accused Dizon and Tecson et
al. had neither animus intercendi nor animus iniuriandi in inicting physical
pain on Lenny Villa. Hence, we rule that the imposable penalty is what is
applicable to the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide as dened
and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling on the Motions for Clarication or Reconsideration
led by Tecson et al.
We clarify, however, the eect of our Decision in light of the motions of
respondents Tecson et al. vis--vis G.R. No. 154954 (People v. Court of Appeals).
The nality of a CA decision will not
bar the state from seeking the
annulment of the judgment via a
Rule 65 petition.
In their separate motions, 21 respondents insist that the previous verdict of the
CA nding them guilty of slight physical injuries has already lapsed into nality
as a result of their respective availments of the probation program and their
ultimate discharge therefrom. Hence, they argue that they can no longer be
convicted of the heavier oense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. 22
Respondents allude to our Decision in Tan v. People 23 to support their contention
that the CA judgment can no longer be reversed or annulled even by this Court.
aIcTCS
The OSG counters 24 that the CA judgment could not have attained nality, as
the former had timely led with this Court a petition for certiorari. It argues that
a Rule 65 petition is analogous to an appeal, or a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, in that a petition for certiorari also prevents the case from
becoming nal and executory until after the matter is ultimately resolved.
Indeed, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court speaks of the nality of a criminal
judgment once the accused applies for probation, viz.:
SECTION 7. Modication of judgment. A judgment of conviction
may, upon motion of the accused, be modied or set aside before it
becomes nal or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death
penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes nal after the lapse of the
period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially
or totally satised or served, or when the accused has waived in
writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. (7a)
(Emphases supplied)
Coupled with Section 7 of Rule 117 25 and Section 1 of Rule 122, 26 it can be
culled from the foregoing provisions that only the accused may appeal the
criminal aspect of a criminal case, especially if the relief being sought is the
correction or review of the judgment therein. This rule was instituted in order to
give life to the constitutional edict 27 against putting a person twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same oense. It is beyond contention that the accused would
be exposed to double jeopardy if the state appeals the criminal judgment in order
to reverse an acquittal or even to increase criminal liability. Thus, the accused's
waiver of the right to appeal as when applying for probation makes the
criminal judgment immediately nal and executory. Our explanation in People v.
Nazareno is worth reiterating: 28
Further prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is
likewise barred because the government has already been aorded
a complete opportunity to prove the criminal defendant's
culpability; after failing to persuade the court to enter a nal judgment of
conviction, the underlying reasons supporting the constitutional ban on
multiple trials applies and becomes compelling. The reason is not only
the defendant's already established innocence at the rst trial
where he had been placed in peril of conviction, but also the
same untoward and prejudicial consequences of a second trial
initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the powers
and resources of the State. Unfairness and prejudice would
necessarily result, as the government would then be allowed
another opportunity to persuade a second trier of the
defendant's guilt while strengthening any weaknesses that had
attended the rst trial, all in a process where the government's power
and resources are once again employed against the defendant's individual
means. That the second opportunity comes via an appeal does not make
the eects any less prejudicial by the standards of reason, justice and
conscience. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
It must be claried, however, that the nality of judgment evinced in Section 7

of Rule 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments. We have
already explained in our Decision that the rule on double jeopardy is not
absolute, and that this rule is inapplicable to cases in which the state assails the
very jurisdiction of the court that issued the criminal judgment. 29 The reasoning
behind the exception is articulated in Nazareno, from which we quote: 30
In such instance, however, no review of facts and law on the
merits, in the manner done in an appeal, actually takes place;
the focus of the review is on whether the judgment is per se
void on jurisdictional grounds, i.e., whether the verdict was rendered
by a court that had no jurisdiction; or where the court has
appropriate jurisdiction, whether it acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other
words, the review is on the question of whether there has been
a validly rendered decision, not on the question of the
decision's error or correctness. Under the exceptional nature of a
Rule 65 petition, the burden a very heavy one is on the shoulders of
the party asking for the review to show the presence of a whimsical or
capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or of a
patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law or to
act in contemplation of law; or to an exercise of power in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. (Emphases supplied,
citations omitted)SADECI
While this Court's Decision in Tan may have created an impression of the
unassailability of a criminal judgment as soon as the accused applies for
probation, we point out that what the state led therein was a mere motion for
the modication of the penalty, and not a Rule 65 petition. A petition for
certiorari is a special civil action that is distinct and separate from the main case.
While in the main case, the core issue is whether the accused is innocent or
guilty of the crime charged, the crux of a Rule 65 petition is whether the court
acted (a) without or in excess of its jurisdiction; or (b) with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, strictly speaking,
there is no modication of judgment in a petition for certiorari, whose resolution
there is no modication of judgment in a petition for certiorari, whose resolution
does not call for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case in order to determine
the ultimate criminal responsibility of the accused. In a Rule 65 petition, any
resulting annulment of a criminal judgment is but a consequence of the nding
of lack of jurisdiction.
In view thereof, we nd that the proper interpretation of Section 7 of Rule 120
must be that it is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court's jurisdiction is
being assailed through a Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the
modication of a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought before the court is
in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. As it is, we
nd no irregularity in the partial annulment of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. No.
15520 in spite of its nality, as the judgment therein was issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The orders of Caloocan City RTC
Branch 130 have no legal eect, as
they were issued without jurisdiction.
First, Tecson et al. led their Applications for Probation with the wrong
court. Part and parcel of our criminal justice system is the authority or
jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate and decide the case before it. Jurisdiction
refers to the power and capacity of the tribunal to hear, try, and decide a
particular case or matter before it. 31 That power and capacity includes the
competence to pronounce a judgment, impose a punishment, 32 and enforce or
suspend 33 the execution of a sentence in accordance with law.
The OSG questions 34 the entire proceedings involving the probation applications
of Tecson et al. before Caloocan City RTC Branch 130. Allegedly, the trial court did
not have competence to take cognizance of the applications, considering that it
was not the court of origin of the criminal case. The OSG points out that the trial
court that originally rendered the Decision in Criminal Case No. C-38340 (91)
was Branch 121 of the Caloocan City RTC.
The pertinent provision of the Probation Law is hereby quoted for reference:
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree,
the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced
a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence
and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon
such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. . . . .
(Emphases supplied)
It is obvious from the foregoing provision that the law requires that an
application for probation be led with the trial court that convicted and sentenced
the defendant, meaning the court of origin. Here, the trial court that originally
convicted and sentenced Tecson et al. of the crime of homicide was Branch 121
not Branch 130 of the Caloocan City RTC. 35 Neither the judge of Branch
130 in his Orders nor Tecson et al. in their pleadings have presented any
explanation or shown any special authority that would clarify why the
Applications for Probation had not been led with or taken cognizance of by
Caloocan City RTC Branch 121. While we take note that in a previous case, the
CA issued a Decision ordering the inhibition of Branch 121 Judge Adoracion G.
Angeles from hearing and deciding Criminal Case No. C-38340 (91), the ruling
was made specically applicable to the trial of petitioners therein, i.e., accused
Concepcion, Ampil, Adriano, and S. Fernandez. 36
Tecson et al. thus committed a fatal error when they led their probation
applications with Caloocan City RTC Branch 130, and not with Branch 121. We
stress that applicants are not at liberty to choose the forum in which they may
seek probation, as the requirement under Section 4 of the Probation law is
substantive and not merely procedural. Considering, therefore, that the probation
proceedings were premised on an unwarranted exercise of authority, we nd that
Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 never acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Second, the records of the case were still with the CA when Caloocan
City RTC Branch 130 granted the probation applications. Jurisdiction over a
case is lodged with the court in which the criminal action has been properly
instituted. 37 If a party appeals the trial court's judgment or nal order, 38
jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court. The execution of the decision is
thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is concerned. 39 The court of origin
then loses jurisdiction over the entire case the moment the other party's time to
appeal has expired. 40 Any residual jurisdiction of the court of origin shall cease
including the authority to order execution pending appeal the moment the
complete records of the case are transmitted to the appellate court. 41
Consequently, it is the appellate court that shall have the authority to wield the
power to hear, try, and decide the case before it, as well as to enforce its
decisions and resolutions appurtenant thereto. That power and authority shall
remain with the appellate court until it nally disposes of the case. Jurisdiction
cannot be ousted by any subsequent event, even if the nature of the incident
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the rst place. CTcSIA
According to Article 78 of the Revised Penal Code, "[n]o penalty shall be executed
except by virtue of a nal judgment." A judgment of a court convicting or
acquitting the accused of the oense charged becomes nal under any of the
following conditions among others: 42 after the lapse of the period for perfecting
an appeal; when the accused waives the right to appeal; upon the grant of a
withdrawal of an appeal; when the sentence has already been partially or totally
satised or served; or when the accused applies for probation. When the decision
attains nality, the judgment or nal order is entered in the book of entries of
judgments. 43 If the case was previously appealed to the CA, a certied true copy
of the judgment or nal older must be attached to the original record, which shall
then be remanded to the clerk of the court from which the appeal was taken. 44
The court of origin then reacquires jurisdiction over the case for appropriate
action. It is during this time that the court of origin may settle the matter of the
execution of penalty or the suspension of the execution thereof, 45 including the
convicts' applications for probation. 46
A perusal of the case records reveals that the CA had not yet relinquished its
jurisdiction over the case when Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 took cognizance of
the Applications for Probation of Tecson et al. It shows that the accused led their
respective applications 47 while a motion for reconsideration was still pending
before the CA 48 and the records were still with that court. 49 The CA settled the
motion only upon issuing the Resolution dated 30 August 2002 denying it, or
about seven months after Tecson et al. had led their applications with the trial
court. 50 In September 2002, or almost a month before the promulgation of the
RTC Order dated 11 October 2002 granting the probation applications, 51 the OSG
had led Manifestations of Intent to File Petition for Certiorari with the CA 52 and
this Court. 53 Ultimately, the OSG assailed the CA judgments by ling before this
Court a Petition for Certiorari on 25 November 2002. 54 We noted the petition
and then required respondents to le a comment thereon. 55 After their
submission of further pleadings and motions, we eventually required all parties
to le their consolidated memoranda. 56 The records of the case remained with
the CA until they were elevated to this Court in 2008. 57
For the foregoing reasons, we nd that RTC Branch 130 had no jurisdiction to act
on the probation applications of Tecson et al. It had neither the power nor the
authority to suspend their sentence, place them on probation, order their nal
discharge, and eventually declare the case against them terminated. This glaring
jurisdictional faux pas is a clear evidence of either gross ignorance of the law or
an underhanded one-upmanship on the part of RTC Branch 130 or Tecson et al.,
or both to which this Court cannot give a judicial imprimatur.
In any event, Tecson et al. were ineligible to seek probation at the time
they applied for it. Probation 58 is a special privilege granted by the state to
penitent qualied oenders who immediately admit their liability and thus
renounce their right to appeal. In view of their acceptance of their fate and
willingness to be reformed, the state aords them a chance to avoid the stigma
of an incarceration record by making them undergo rehabilitation outside of
prison. Some of the major purposes of the law are to help oenders to
eventually develop themselves into law-abiding and self-respecting individuals,
as well as to assist them in their reintegration with the community.
It must be reiterated that probation is not a right enjoyed by the accused. Rather,
it is an act of grace or clemency conferred by the state. In Francisco v. Court of
Appeals, 59 this Court explained thus:
It is a special prerogative granted by law to a person or group of
persons not enjoyed by others or by all. Accordingly, the grant of
probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court which is to be
exercised primarily for the benet of organized society, and only
incidentally for the benet of the accused. The Probation Law should
not therefore be permitted to divest the state or its
government of any of the latter's prerogatives, rights or
remedies, unless the intention of the legislature to this end is
clearly expressed, and no person should benet from the terms
of the law who is not clearly within them. (Emphases supplied)
The OSG questions the validity of the grant of the probation applications of
Tecson et al. 60 It points out that when they appealed to the CA their homicide
conviction by the RTC, they thereby made themselves ineligible to seek
probation pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968 (the Probation
Law). CAHaST
We refer again to the full text of Section 4 of the Probation Law as follows:
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree,
the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced
a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence
and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon
such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of

imprisonment or a ne only. An application for probation shall be led with
the trial court. The ling of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the
right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

(Emphases supplied)
Indeed, one of the legal prerequisites of probation is that the oender must not
have appealed the conviction. 61 In the 2003 case Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals, 62
this Court was faced with the issue of whether a convict may still apply for
probation even after the trial court has imposed a non-probationable verdict,
provided that the CA later on lowers the original penalty to a sentence within the
probationable limit. In that case, the trial court sentenced the accused to a
maximum term of eight years of prisin mayor, which was beyond the coverage
of the Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after the CA
reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed to 1 year, 8 months and 21
days of prisin correccional.
In deciding the case, this Court invoked the reasoning in Francisco and ruled that
the accused was ineligible for probation, since they had led an appeal with the
CA. In Francisco, we emphasized that Section 4 of the Probation Law oers no
ambiguity and does not provide for any distinction, qualication, or exception.
What is clear is that all oenders who previously appealed their cases, regardless
of their reason for appealing, are disqualied by the law from seeking probation.
Accordingly, this Court enunciated in Lagrosa that the accused are disallowed
from availing themselves of the benets of probation if they obtain a genuine
opportunity to apply for probation only on appeal as a result of the downgrading
of their sentence from non-probationable to probationable.
W hile Lagrosa was promulgated three months after Caloocan City RTC Branch
130 issued its various Orders discharging Tecson et al. from probation, the ruling
in Lagrosa, however, was a mere reiteration of the reasoning of this Court since
the 1989 case Llamado v. Court of Appeals 63 and Francisco. The Applications for
Probation of Tecson et al., therefore, should not have been granted by RTC Branch
130, as they had appealed their conviction to the CA. We recall that respondents
were originally found guilty of homicide and sentenced to suer 14 years, 8
months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, even if the
CA later downgraded their conviction to slight physical injuries and sentenced
them to 20 days of arresto menor, which made the sentence fall within
probationable limits for the rst time, the RTC should have nonetheless found
them ineligible for probation at the time.
The actions of the trial court must thus be adjudged as an arbitrary and despotic
use of authority, so gross that it divested the court of its very power to dispense
use of authority, so gross that it divested the court of its very power to dispense
justice. As a consequence, the RTC Orders granting the Applications for Probation
of Tecson et al. and thereafter discharging them from their criminal liability must
be deemed to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
Whether for lack of jurisdiction or for grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, we declare all orders, resolutions, and judgments of
Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 in relation to the probation applications of Tecson
et al. null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction. We nd our
pronouncement in Galman v. Sandiganbayan 64 applicable, viz.:
A void judgment is, in legal eect, no judgment at all. By it no
rights are divested. Through it, no rights can be attained. Being
worthless, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It
neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it and all claims
owing out of it are void. (Emphasis supplied)
The ultimate discharge of Tecson et

al. from probation did not totally
extinguish their criminal liability.
Accused Bantug asserts 65 that, in any event, their criminal liability has already
been extinguished as a result of their discharge from probation and the eventual
termination of the criminal case against them by Caloocan City RTC Branch 130.
To support his argument, he cites the following provision of the Revised Penal
Code:
ARTICLE 89. How Criminal Liability is Totally Extinguished. Criminal
liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as

to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only
when the death of the oender occurs before nal judgment.
2. By service of the sentence.

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all
its eects.
4. By absolute pardon.
5. By prescription of the crime.

6. By prescription of the penalty.
7. By the marriage of the oended woman, as provided in article

344 of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)
As previously discussed, a void judgment cannot be the source of legal rights;

legally speaking, it is as if no judgment had been rendered at all. Considering our
annulment of the Orders of Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 in relation to the
probation proceedings, respondents cannot claim benets that technically do not
exist.
In any event; Tecson et al. cannot invoke Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, as
we nd it inapplicable to this case. One of the hallmarks of the Probation Law is
precisely to "suspend the execution of the sentence," 66 and not to replace the
original sentence with another, as we pointed out in our discussion in Baclayon v.
Mutia: 67
An order placing defendant on "probation" is not a "sentence" but is rather in
eect a suspension of the imposition of sentence. It is not a nal judgment but
is rather an "interlocutory judgment" in the nature of a conditional order
placing the convicted defendant under the supervision of the court for his
reformation, to be followed by a nal judgment of discharge, if the conditions of
the probation are complied with, or by a nal judgment of sentence if the
conditions are violated. (Emphases supplied)
Correspondingly, the criminal liability of Tecson et al. remains.
In light of our recent Decision in
Colinares v. People, Tecson et al.
may now reapply for probation.
Very recently, in Colinares v. People, 68 we revisited our ruling in Francisco and
modied our pronouncements insofar as the eligibility for probation of those who
appeal their conviction is concerned. Through a majority vote of 9-6, the Court
En Banc in eect abandoned Lagrosa and settled the following once and for all: 69
ECSaAc
Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals
"from the judgment of conviction" is disqualied from availing himself of
the benets of probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of conviction
have been meted out to Arnel: one, a conviction for frustrated homicide
by the regional trial court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for
attempted homicide by the Supreme Court.
If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinion's hard position, it will
apply the probation law on Arnel based on the trial court's annulled
judgment against him. He will not be entitled to probation because of the
severe penalty that such judgment imposed on him. More, the Supreme
Court's judgment of conviction for a lesser oense and a lighter penalty
will also have to bend over to the trial court's judgment even if this has
been found in error. And, worse, Arnel will now also be made to pay for
the trial court's erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right to
apply for probation. Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa
kalabaw (the horse errs, the carabao gets the whip). Where is justice
there?
The dissenting opinion also expresses apprehension that allowing Arnel to
apply for probation would dilute the ruling of this Court in Francisco v.
Court of Appeals that the probation law requires that an accused must
not have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation.
But there is a huge dierence between Francisco and this case.
xxx xxx xxx
Here, however, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would
have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, "By taking
this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The sti penalty that the
trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. Thus, a ruling that
would allow Arnel to now seek probation under this Court's
greatly diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling in
Francisco. It remains that those who will appeal from judgments
of conviction, when they have the option to try for probation,
forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
xxx xxx xxx
In a real sense, the Court's nding that Arnel was guilty, not of
frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an
original conviction that for the rst time imposes on him a
probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it
would have found him guilty of the correct oense and imposed on him
the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would
have aorded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right

to probation through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy
of probation is one of liberality towards the accused. Such
philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the
statutory provisions. As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent in
Francisco, the Probation Law must not be regarded as a mere
privilege to be given to the accused only where it clearly
appears he comes within its letter; to do so would be to
disregard the teaching in many cases that the Probation Law
should be applied in favor of the accused not because it is a
criminal law but to achieve its benecent purpose.
xxx xxx xxx
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right
and imposed on Arnel the correct penalty of two years and four
months maximum, he would have had the right to apply for
probation. No one could say with certainty that he would have availed
himself of the right had the RTC done right by him. The idea may not even
have crossed his mind precisely since the penalty he got was not
probationable.
The question in this case is ultimately one of fairness. Is it fair
to deny Arnel the right to apply for probation when the new
penalty that the Court imposes on him is, unlike the one
erroneously imposed by the trial court, subject to probation?
(Emphases supplied)
In our Decision, we set aside the RTC and the CA judgments and found Tecson et
al. ultimately liable for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Pursuant to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the oense is punishable by
arresto mayor in its maximum period (from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months) to
prisin correccional in its medium period (from 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4
years and 2 months). Considering that the new ruling in Colinares is more
favorable to Tecson et al., we rule that they are now eligible to apply for
probation. Since Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) was convicted of the same crime, we
hereby clarify that Dizon is also eligible for probation.
While we cannot recognize the validity of the Orders of RTC Branch. 130, which
granted the Applications for Probation, we cannot disregard the fact that Tecson
et al. have fullled the terms and conditions of their previous probation program
and have eventually been discharged therefrom. Thus, should they reapply for
probation, the trial court may, at its discretion, consider their antecedent
probation service in resolving whether to place them under probation at this time
and in determining the terms, conditions, and period thereof. AcHCED
Final claricatory matters

We now take this opportunity to correct an unintentional typographical error in
the minimum term of the penalty imposed on the accused Dizon and Tecson et
al. While this issue was not raised by any of the parties before us, this Court
deems it proper to discuss the matter ex proprio motu in the interest of justice.
In the rst paragraph of the dispositive portion of our Decision dated 1 February
2012, the fourth sentence reads as follows:
They are hereby sentenced to suer an indeterminate prison term of four
(4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4)
years and two (2) months of prisin correccional, as maximum.
As we had intended to impose on the accused the maximum term of the "penalty
next lower" than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the oense of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, in accordance with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL), 70 the phrase "and one (1) day," which had been
inadvertently added, must be removed. Consequently, in the rst paragraph of
the dispositive portion, the fourth sentence should now read as follows:
They are hereby sentenced to suer an indeterminate prison term of four
(4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prisin correccional, as maximum.
In this instance, we further nd it important to clarify the accessory penalties

inherent to the principal penalty imposed on Dizon and Tecson et al.
By operation of Articles 40 to 45 and 73 of the Revised Penal Code, a
corresponding accessory penalty automatically attaches every time a court lays
down a principal penalty outlined in Articles 25 and 27 thereof. 71 The applicable
accessory penalty is determined by using as reference the principal penalty
imposed by the court before the prison sentence is computed in
accordance with the ISL. 72 This determination is made in spite of the two
classes of penalties mentioned in an indeterminate sentence. It must be
emphasized that the provisions on the inclusion of accessory penalties
specically allude to the actual "penalty" 73 imposed, not to the "prison sentence"
74 set by a court. We believe that the ISL did not intend to have the eect of
imposing on the convict two distinct sets of accessory penalties for the salve
o ense. 75 The two penalties are only relevant insofar as setting the minimum
imprisonment period is concerned, after which the convict may apply for parole
and eventually seek the shortening of the prison term. 76
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty
for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prisin correccional in its medium period. As this
provision grants courts the discretion to lay down a penalty without regard to
the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the imposable
penalty must also be within the aforementioned range. 77 Hence, before
applying the ISL, we ultimately imposed on Dizon and Tecson et al. the actual
(straight) penalty 78 of four years and two months of prisin correccional. 79
Pursuant to Article 43 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of prisin
correccional automatically carries with it 80 the following accessory penalties:
ARTICLE 43. Prisin Correccional Its accessory penalties. The penalty
o f prisin correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public
oce, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualication from the right of surage, if the duration
of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The oender shall
suer the disqualication provided in this article although pardoned as to
the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted
in the pardon.
The duration of their suspension shall be the same as that of their principal
penalty sans the ISL; that is, for four years and two months 81 or until they have
served their sentence in accordance with law. Their suspension takes eect
immediately, once the judgment of conviction becomes nal. 82
We further point out that if the length of their imprisonment exceeds 18 months,
they shall furthermore suer a perpetual special disqualication from the right
of surage. Under Article 32 of the Revised Penal Code, if this accessory penalty
attaches, it shall forever deprive them of the exercise of their right (a) to vote in
any popular election for any public oce; (b) to be elected to that oce; and (c)
to hold any public oce. 83 Any public oce that they may be holding becomes
vacant upon nality of the judgment. 84 The aforementioned accessory penalties
can only be wiped out if expressly remitted in a pardon. 85
Of course, the aforementioned accessory penalties are without prejudice to a
grant of probation, should the trial court nd them eligible therefor. As we
explained in Baclayon, 86 the grant of probation suspends the execution of the
principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as that of the accessory penalties. We
have reiterated this point in Moreno v. Commission on Elections: 87
In Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court declared that an order placing defendant
on probation is not a sentence but is rather, in eect, a suspension of the
imposition of sentence. We held that the grant of probation to
petitioner suspended the imposition of the principal penalty of
imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties of suspension
from public oce and from the right to follow a profession or
calling, and that of perpetual special disqualication from the right of
surage. We thus deleted from the order granting probation the
paragraph which required that petitioner refrain from continuing with her
teaching profession.
Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory

penalties of suspension from public oce, from the right to
follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualication from the right of surage, attendant to the penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisin correccional in its
minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended
upon the grant of probation.

It appears then that during the period of probation, the
probationer is not even disqualied from running for a public
oce because the accessory penalty of suspension from public
oce is put on hold for the duration of the probation. . . . .
During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the
penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely required to
comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of

petitioner Gerarda H. Villa in connection with G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080 is
hereby DENIED. The Motion for Reconsideration led by the Oce of the
Solicitor General concerning G.R. Nos. 155101 and 154954 is also DENIED.
The respective Motions for Clarication or Reconsideration of Antonio Mariano
Almeda, Junel Anthony D. Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are
likewise DENIED. In light of the nding that Caloocan City Regional Trial Court
Branch 130 acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
the aforementioned Applications for Probation, we hereby ANNUL the entire
probation proceedings and SET ASIDE all orders, resolutions, or judgments
issued in connection thereto. We, however, CLARIFY that Antonio Mariano
Almeda, Junel Anthony D. Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., Vincent Tecson, and Fidelito
Dizon are eligible to apply or reapply for probation in view of our recent ruling in
Colinares v. People of the Philippines, 88 without prejudice to their remaining civil
liability, if any. aIDHET
Furthermore, we issue a CORRECTION of the dispositive portion of our Decision

dated 1 February 2012 and hereby delete the phrase "and one (1) day" located in
the fourth sentence of the rst paragraph thereof. The sentence shall now read
as follows: "They are hereby sentenced to suer an indeterminate prison term of
four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prisin correccional, as maximum."
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Villarama, * Jr., Perez and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per S.O.
No. 1888 dated 28 November 2014.
1. Villareal v. People, G.R. Nos. 151258, 154954, 155101, 178057 & 178080, 1
February 2012, 664 SCRA 519.
2. CA Decision (People v. Dizon, CA-G.R. CR No. 15520, 10 January 2002), rollo (G.R.
No. 154954, Vol. I), pp. 221-249; CA Resolution (People v. Dizon, CA-G.R. CR
No. 15520, 30 August 2002), rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol. I), pp. 209-218. Both
the Decision and the Resolution of the CA were penned by Associate Justice
Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and
Eliezer R. de los Santos (with Concurring Opinion).
3. RTC Decision (People v. Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340[91], 8 November 1993),
rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol. I), pp. 273-340. The Decision of the RTC was
penned by Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.
4. CA Decision (Escalona v. Regional Trial Court , CA-G.R. S.P. Nos. 89060 & 90153, 25
October 2006), rollo (G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080), pp. 12-51. The Decision
was penned by Associate Justice Marior P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in
by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
5. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 598-599.
6. Id. at 530-535.
7. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of petitioner Gerarda H. Villa (posted on 6 March
2012), rollo (G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080), pp. 1607-1660.
8. CA Decision dated 25 October 2006 (Escalona v. Regional Trial Court ), supra note
4; CA Resolution (Escalona v. Regional Trial Court , CA-G.R. S.P. Nos. 89060 &
90153, 17 May 2007), rollo (G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080), pp. 53-58.
9. Motion for Reconsideration of OSG (posted on 7 March 2012), rollo (G.R. No.
155101), pp. 2085-2117.
10. Manifestation and Motion for Clarication of Almeda (led on 2 March 2012), rollo
(G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1843-1860; Motion for Reconsideration of Ama (led on
5 March 2012), rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1883-1896; Motion for Clarication
of Bantug (led on 6 March 2012), rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1953-1966; and
Motion for Clarication of Tecson (led on 6 March 2012), rollo (G.R. No.
155101), pp. 1930-1941.
11. Rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1861, 1897, 1942, & 1967.
12. RTC Order (People v. Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340, 11 October 2002), rollo
(G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1872-1873, 1904-1905, 1950-1951, 1977-1978.
13. RTC Order (People v. Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340, 29 April 2003), rollo (G.R.
No. 155101), p. 1875; RTC Order (People v. Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340,
10 April 2003), rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1906, 1952; RTC Order (People v.
Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340, 3 April 2003), rollo (G.R. No. 155101), p.
1979.
14. Rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1861-1875, 1897-1906, 1942-1952, 1967-1979.
15. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 545 (citing People v. Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289
[2006]; People v. Tampal, 314 Phil. 35 [1995]; Philippine Savings Bank v.
Bermoy, 508 Phil. 96 [2005]; People v. Bans, 239 SCRA 48 [1994]; People v.
Declaro, 252 Phil. 139 [1989]; and People v. Quizada, 243 Phil. 658 [1988]).
16. See: People v. Hernandez, supra.
17. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 550 (citing People v. Court of Appeals and
Galicia, 545 Phil. 278 [2007]; People v. Serrano, 374 Phil. 302 [1999]; and
People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550).
18. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 551 (citing People v. De Grano, supra note 17;
and People v. Maquiling, 368 Phil. 169 [1999]).
19. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 552 (citing People v. Maquiling, supra; and
Teknika Skills and Trade Services v. Secretary of Labor and Employment , 339
Phil. 218 [1997]).
20. Villareal v. People, supra note 1, at 556-593.
21. Supra note 10.

22. In the annulled CA Decision (supra note 2), Tecson et al. were sentenced to suer
the penalty of 20 days of arresto menor. On the other hand, in the Decision of
this Court (supra note 1), they were sentenced to suer the indeterminate
prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum,
to four (4) years and two (2) months of prisin correccional, as maximum.
23. 430 Phil. 685 (2002). The accused was found guilty of bigamy by the trial court,
and was sentenced to suer a prison term of prisin correccional. He thereafter
applied for probation, as the sentence imposed on him was probationable.
Subsequently however, the trial court withheld the order of release from
probation in view of the ling by the prosecution of a motion for modication of
the penalty. The prosecution pointed out that the trial court erred in imposing
the sentence on the accused, as the legally imposable penalty under the
Revised Penal Code was prisin mayor, which is non-probationable. The trial
court reconsidered its order and amended the sentence from a maximum
period of 4 years and 2 months to the maximum period of 8 years and 1 day,
which had the eect of disqualifying accused from applying for probation. This
Court set aside the amendatory judgment of the trial court and reinstated its
original decision, and ruled that the trial court judgment can no longer be
reversed, annulled, reconsidered, or amended, as it has already lapsed into
nality. It was then reiterated that the accused's waiver of appeal brought about
by his application for probation amounted to a voluntary compliance with the
decision and wrote nis to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the judgment.
24. Reply of OSG dated 25 November 2004, rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol. I), pp. 1098-
1132.
25. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides as follows:
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has

been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sucient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the oense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
any oense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the oense
charged in the former complaint or information. (Emphasis supplied)
26. Rules of Court, Rule 122, provides as follows:
SECTION 1. Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a judgment or nal
order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)
(Emphases supplied).
27. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21.
28. G.R. No. 168982, 5 August 2009, 595 SCRA 438, 450.
29. People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, supra note 17 (citing People v. Serrano,
supra note 17, at 306; and People v. De Grano, supra note 17).
30. Supra note 28, at 451.

31. People v. Mariano, 163 Phil. 625 (1976).
32. Id.; and Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 378 Phil. 1166 (1999).
33. See: Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law, Sec. 4.
1132.
35. See: RTC Decision (People v. Dizon), supra note 3.
36. Concepcion v. Judge Angeles, CA-G.R. SP No. 32793 (CA, decided on 15 June
1994), slip. op., at 16.
37. See Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980), Sec. 20, for the applicable law on which court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over criminal cases; and Rule 110, Sec. 15, for the applicable rule on
where the criminal action must be instituted.
38. Rule 122, Sec. 1; Rule 121, Sec. 7.

39. Rule 122, Sec. 11 (c).
40. Rule 41, Sec. 9 in relation to Rule 122, Sec. 6.
41. Rule 41, Sec. 9 in relation to Rule 122, Secs. 8 and 11 (c).
42. Rule 120, Sec. 7; Rule 122, Sec. 12.
43. Rule 120, Sec. 8 in relation to Rule 36, Sec. 2; Rule 124, Sec. 17.
44. Rule 124, Sec. 17.

45. Revised Penal Code, Arts. 78 to 88 (in relation to Rule 124, Sec. 17; Rule 121, Sec.
8; Rule 36, Sec. 2; Rule 39, Sec. 1).
46. Probation Law, Sec. 4.
47. Tecson et al. led their applications on various dates in January 2002. See: rollo
(G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1861-1863, 1897-1901, 1942-1944, & 1967-1969.
48. See: CA Resolution dated 30 August 2002, supra note 2 at 6, rollo (G.R. No.
154954, Vol. I), p. 214.
49. See: CA Resolution (People v. Dizon, CA-G.R. CR No. 15520, 14 February 2002),
rollo (G.R. No. 155101), p. 1972. In the Resolution, the CA stated that "the
records of this case cannot be remanded at this stage considering the motions
for reconsideration led hereto." See also: Letter of Presiding Judge Adoracion
G. Angeles, CA rollo Vol. II, pp. 2686-2688; Transmittal Letter from the CA dated
19 February 2008, rollo (G.R. No. 155101), p. 918.
50. CA Resolution dated 30 August 2002, supra note 2 at 6, rollo (G.R. No. 154954,
Vol. I), p. 214.
51. RTC Order (People v. Dizon, Criminal Case No. C-38340, 11 October 2002), rollo
(G.R. No. 155101), pp. 1872-1873, 1904-1905, 1950-1951, 1977-1978.
52. CA Resolution (People v. Dizon, CA-G.R. CR No. 15520, 29 October 2002), CA rollo
Volume II, pp. 2724-2725.
53. Supreme Court Resolution dated 25 November 2002, rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol.
I), p. 10-A.
54. The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Extension led by the OSG. See:
Supreme Court Resolution dated 13 October 2003, rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol.
I), p. 675.
55. Supreme Court Resolution dated 13 October 2003, rollo (G.R. No. 154954, Vol. I),
p. 675.
56. Supreme Court Resolution dated 21 October 2009, rollo (G.R. No. 155101), pp.
1156-1160.
57. Transmittal Letter from the CA dated 19 February 2008, rollo (G.R. No. 155101),
p. 918; See also Letter of Presiding Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Caloocan City
RTC Branch 121, CA rollo Vol. II, pp. 2686-2688. Judge Angeles informed the CA
that the records of the case had not yet been remanded to Branch 121, thus
preventing her from complying with the CA Resolution to release the cash bond
posted by one of the accused. The CA Third Division received the letter on 22
October 2002 or 11 days after RTC Branch 130 granted the probation
applications.
58. Probation Law; Francisco v. Court of Appeals , 313 Phil. 241 (1995); and Baclayon
v. Mutia, 214 Phil. 126 (1984). See: Del Rosario v. Rosero, 211 Phil. 406 (1983).
59. Id. at 254-255.
1132.
61. Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals , 453 Phil. 270 (2003); and Francisco v. Court of
Appeals, supra note 58.
62. Supra. See also: Francisco v. Court of Appeals, supra note 58.
63. 256 Phil. 328 (1989).

64. 228 Phil. 42, 90 (1986). E.g., People v. Jardin, 209 Phil. 134, 140 (1983) (citing
Gomez v. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717 [1925]; Chavez v. Court of Appeals , 133 Phil.
661 [1968]; Paredes v. Moya, 158 Phil. 1150, [1974]).
65. Motion for Clarication of Bantug, supra note 10.
66. Probation Law, Sec. 4.
67. Supra note 58, at 132.

68. G.R. No. 182748, 13 December 2011, 662 SCRA 266.
69. Id. at 279-282.
70. See, e.g.: People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, 17 December 2008, 574 SCRA
258; People v. Gabres, 335 Phil. 242 (1997); and People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109
(1933).
71. Revised Penal Code, Art. 73. People v. Silvallana, 61 Phil. 636, 644 (1935).
According to Silvallana: "It is therefore unnecessary to express the accessory
penalties in the sentence."
72. See, e.g.: Moreno v. Commission on Elections, 530 Phil. 279 (2006); Baclayon v.
Mutia, supra note 58.

73. Article 73 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Presumption in Regard to the
Imposition of Accessory Penalties. Whenever the courts shall impose a
penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to
the provisions of articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of this Code, it must be
understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict."
74. Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, provides: "Hereafter,
in imposing a prison sentence for an oense punished by the Revised Penal
Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which,
in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
oense; . . . ."
75. The law should not apply if its application would be unfavorable to the accused.
See generally RAMON C. AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE VOL. 1, 720-
721 (1987).
76. See ISL, Sec. 5; RAMON C. AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE VOL. 1, 718-
720 (1987).
77. Article 365 provides: "In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise
their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in article sixty-
four."
78. People v. Temporada, supra note 70; People v. Ducosin, supra. See, e.g.,:
Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 12; Guinhawa
v. People, 505 Phil. 383 (2005); People v. Dy, 425 Phil. 608 (2002); People v.
Darilay, 465 Phil. 747 (2004); People v. Bustamante, 445 Phil. 345 (2003);
People v. Catuiran, 397 Phil. 325 (2000); People v. Barro, 392 Phil. 857 (2000);
Austria v. Court of Appeals , 384 Phil. 408 (2000); Ladino v. People, 333 Phil. 254
(1996); People v. Parohinog, 185 Phil. 266 (1980); People v. Dimalanta, 92 Phil.
239 (1952).
79. People v. Temporada, supra note 70. The case explained the dierence between a
"prescribed penalty," "imposable penalty," and "penalty actually imposed."
80. See: Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 193237 and 193536, 9
October 2012, 683 SCRA 1; Aratea v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
195229, 9 October 2012, 683 SCRA 105; and People v. Silvallana, supra note
71.
81. See Art. 27 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides: "Prisin correccional,
suspension, and destierro. The duration of the penalties of prisin
correccional, suspension, and destierro shall be from six months and one day
to six years, except when the suspension is imposed as an accessory
penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty" and Art. 33, which states: "Eects of the Penalties of cont.
Suspension from Any Public Oce, Profession or Calling, or the Right of Surage.
The suspension from public oce, profession or calling, and the exercise
of the right of surage shall disqualify the oender from holding such oce or
exercising such profession or calling or right of surage during the term of
the sentence. The person suspended from holding public oce shall not hold
another having similar functions during the period of his suspension."
(Emphases supplied). Cf: Lacuna v. Abes, 133 Phil. 770 (1968). The Court En
Banc explained therein that then Mayor-elect Benjamin Abes was released from
connement on 7 April 1959 by virtue of a conditional pardon granted by the
President of the Philippines, remitting only the unexpired portion of the prison
term and ne. It then claried that without the pardon, his maximum sentence
would have been served on 13 October 1961. Accordingly, the Court said that
the accessory penalty of temporary absolute disqualication would have barred
him for seeking public oce and for exercising his right to vote until 13 October
1961.
82. Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, supra note 80.
83. See: Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, supra note 80 (citing Lacuna v. Abes,
supra); Aratea v. Commission on Elections, supra note 80; People v. Silvallana,
supra note 71.
84. Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, supra note 80.
85. Revised Penal Code, Art. 36. See: Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205033, 18 June 2013, 698 SCRA 742; Monsanto v. Factoran, 252 Phil. 192
(1989); Lacuna v. Abes, supra note 81.
86. Supra note 58.
87. Supra note 72.
88. Supra note 68.

2014 Villareal v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Villareal v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Villareal v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151258. December 1, 2014.]

ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

[G.R. No. 154954. December 1, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE

[G.R. No. 155101. December 1, 2014.]

FIDELITO DIZON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

[G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080. December 1, 2014.]

GERARDA H. VILLA, petitioner, vs. MANUEL LORENZO

The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954, acquitting Victorino et al., is

To refresh our memories, we quote the factual antecedents surrounding the

On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were met by some

On the morning of their second day 9 February 1991 the neophytes

After a while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity members Fidelito

After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lenny's

In Criminal Case No. C-38340(91)

2. Artemio Villareal (Villareal)

4. Vincent Tecson (Tecson)

7. Renato Bantug, Jr. (Bantug)

9. Eulogio Sabban (Sabban)

11. Etienne Guerrero (Guerrero)

14. Paul Angelo Santos (Santos)

16. Antonio General (General)

21. Zosimo Mendoza (Mendoza)

23. Amante Purisima II (Purisima)

25. Adel Abas (Abas)

1. Manuel Escalona II (Escalona)

3. Anselmo Adriano (Adriano)

5. Reynaldo Concepcion (Concepcion)

8. Stanley Fernandez (S. Fernandez)

Twenty-six of the accused Aquilans in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91)

On 8 November 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in Criminal

On 10 January 2002, the CA in (CA-G.R. No. 15520) set aside the

2. Four of the accused-appellants Vincent Tecson, Junel

3. Two of the accused-appellants Fidelito Dizon and

Motion for Partial Reconsideration

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those

On the other hand, intentional felonies concern those wrongs in which a

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances that the mere iniction of

xxx xxx xxx

Reckless imprudence or negligence consists of a voluntary act

The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an

It must be claried, however, that the nality of judgment evinced in Section 7

Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of

An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

The ultimate discharge of Tecson et

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as

2. By service of the sentence.

5. By prescription of the crime.

7. By the marriage of the oended woman, as provided in article

As previously discussed, a void judgment cannot be the source of legal rights;

The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right

xxx xxx xxx

Final claricatory matters

In this instance, we further nd it important to clarify the accessory penalties