PEOPLE v BAYKER imposed.

However, the floor of the maximum

period – six years, eight months and 21 days - is
FACTS: fixed in the absence of any aggravating
circumstance, or of any showing of the greater
The accused-appellants were charged with the extent of the evil produced by the crime, to which
crime of illegal recruitment and estafa. The RTC is then added the incremental penalty of one year
rendered a decision against the accused. Upon for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, or three
appeal, the CA affirmed with modifications the years in all. The resulting total penalty is nine years,
decision of the trial court. In Criminal Case for eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, which
Illegal Recruitment, the fine imposed is REDUCED to shall be the maximum of the indeterminate
Pl00,000.00 and for Estafa, appellant is sentenced to sentence.
suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision correccional as The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor as taken from prision correccional in its minimum
maximum. period to prision correccional in its medium period
(i.e., six months and one day to four years and two
ISSUE: months), the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. We note
Whether or not the application of indeterminate
that the CA correctly fixed the minimum of the
penalty is proper.
indeterminate sentence at four years and two
RULING: NO. months of prision correccional.

Inasmuch as the prescribed penalty is prision In view of the foregoing, the indeterminate
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor sentence for the accused-appellant is from four
in its minimum period, plus one year for each years and two months of prision correccional, as
additional Pl0,000.00 over P22,000.00, provided that the minimum, to nine years, eight months and 21
the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years, the days of prision mayor.
penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant
should depend on the amount defrauded. We note
that the RTC took into consideration only the sum of FRANCISCO v CA
P40,000.00, and the CA concurred with the RTC
thereon. Yet, the records reveal that Miparanum FACTS:
paid to the accused-appellant and her co-
accused not only P40,000.00 but the aggregate The petitioner, then president and general
sum of P54,700.00 (i.e., the P6,000.00 for the manager of ASPAC Trans Company, was charged
seaman's book, the additional P6,000.00 for the with the crime of multiple grave oral defamation by
seaman's book, the P40,000.00 for placement fee, uttering the words “You employees in this office are
and P2,700 for his training certificate). The amount all tanga, son of a bitches (sic), bullshit. Puro kayo
of P54, 700.00 is the determinant of the penalty to walang utak . . . . Mga anak ng puta . . . . Magkano
be imposed. ba kayo . . . God damn you all.”

Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, The MTC of Makati found him guilty. Aggrieved, he
the penalty prescribed for estafa in which the elevated the case to RTC. The RTC affirmed his
amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not conviction but appreciated in his favor a mitigating
exceed P22,000.00 is prision correccional in its circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation.
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period (i.e., four years, two months and one day to Accordingly, petitioner was sentenced "in each
eight years); if the amount of the fraud exceeds case to a STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS
P22,000.00, the penalty thus prescribed shall be imprisonment . . . . "3 After he failed to interpose an
imposed in its maximum period, and one year shall appeal therefrom the decision.of the RTC became
be added for each additional Pl0,000.00 provided final. The case was then set for execution of
the total penalty imposed shall not exceed 20 judgment by the MeTC which, as a consequence,
years. Considering that the penalty does not consist issued a warrant of arrest. But before he could be
of three periods, the prescribed penalty is divided arrested petitioner filed an application for
into three equal portions, and each portion shall probation which the MeTC denied.
form a period, with the maximum period being then

1
On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the arrest of petitioner had been issued . . . (and)
petition. almost two months after (his) receipt of the
Decision" 22 of the RTC.
ISSUE:
PADUA v PEOPLE
Whether or not the petitioner is still qualified to avail
probation. FACTS:

RULING: NO. Petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde

were charged before the RTC, of violating Republic
First. Probation is a mere privilege, not a right. 8 Its Act No. 9165, for selling dangerous drugs.
benefits cannot extend to those not expressly
included. Probation is not a right of an accused, The accused was found guilty and sentenced him
but rather an act of grace and clemency or to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years
immunity conferred by the state which may be and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to
granted by the court to a seemingly deserving seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors reclusion temporal as maximum and a fine of Five
of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
which he stands convicted.
The accused Padua subsequently filed a Petition for
Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, Probation alleging that he is a minor and a first-time
mandates that "no application for probation shall offender. However, public respondent Pairing
be entertained or granted if the defendant has Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio denied the Petition for
perfected the appeal from the judgment of Probation on the ground that under Section 24 19 of
conviction.” Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege granted by
The case of Llamado v CA, relied by the petitioner, the Probation Law.
provides that an appeal should not bar the
accused from applying for probation if the appeal ISSUE:
is solely to reduce the penalty to within the
Whether or not the dismissal of the application for
probationable limit. This interpretation, being
probation is proper.
erroneous and contrary to the rule of statutory
construction which provides that “negative words RULING: YES.
and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory
while those in the affirmative are merely directory. . SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for
. . the use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its Drug Traffickers and Pushers. – Any person
mandatory character and means that it is convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this
imperative, operating to impose a duty which may Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the
be enforced.” Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
Second. The penalties imposed by the MeTC were amended.
already probationable. Hence, there was no need
to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to within The elementary rule in statutory construction is that
the probationable period. Multiple prison terms when the words and phrases of the statute are
imposed against an accused. clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and the
Third. Petitioner appealed to the RTC not to reduce statute must be taken to mean exactly what it
or even correct the penalties imposed by the says.29 If a statute is clear, plain and free from
MeTC, but to assert his innocence. ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation. This is
Fourth. The application for probation was filed way what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba
beyond the period allowed by law. This is vital way legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi
beyond the period allowed by law and crucial. sermo, or speech is the index of
From the records it is clear that the application for intention.30 Furthermore, there is the maxim verba
probation was filed "only after a warrant for the
2
legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a ISSUE:
statute there should be no departure.31
Whether or not the petitioner was no longer under
BALA v MARTINEZ probation after its expiration.

FACTS: RULING: NO

The petitioner had been indicted for removing and Probation is revocable before the final discharge of
substituting the picture of Maria Eloisa Criss Diazen the probationer by the court, contrary to the
which had been attached to her United States of petitioner's submission.
America passport, with that of Florencia Notarte, in
effect falsifying a genuine public or official Section 16 of PD 968 8 is clear on this score:
document. The trial court found the petitioner guilty
of the crime of falsification of a public document. See. 16. Termination of Probation. — After
the period of probation and upon
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower consideration of the report and
court's decision. recommendation of the probation officer,
the court may order the final discharge of
After the case had been remanded to the court of the probationer upon finding that he has
origin for execution of judgment, 2 the petitioner fulfilled the terms and conditions of his
applied for and was granted probation by the probation and thereupon the case is
respondent judge in his order dated August 11, deemed terminated.
1982. The petitioner was then placed under
probation for a period of one (1) year, subject to Thus, the expiration of the probation period alone
the terms and conditions enumerated therein. does not automatically terminate probation.
Nowhere is the ipso facto termination of probation
On September 23, 1982, the probationer (petitioner) found in the provisions of the probation law.
asked his supervising probation officer for permission Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
to transfer his residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am must first be issued by the court of an order of final
Life Subdivision in Las Piñas specifically 33 Jingco discharge based on the report and
Street. The probation officer verbally granted the recommendation of the probation officer. Only
probationer's request as he found nothing from such issuance can the case of the probationer
objectionable to it. be deemed terminated.

By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should

have expired on August 10, 1983, 3 one year after
the order granting the same was issued. But, the ALMERO v PEOPLE
order of final discharge could not be issued
because the respondent probation officer had not FACTS:
yet submitted his final report on the conduct of his
charge.
Petitioner was accused with the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple
The respondent People of the Philippines, through physical injuries. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Assistant City Fiscal Jose D. Cajucom of Manila, filed Labo, Camarines Norte found petitioner guilty and
a motion to revoke the probation of the petitioner sentenced him to suffer prision correccional in its
on the ground that the petitioner had violated the medium and maximum periods.
terms and conditions of his probation.
Petitioner filed an Application for Probation,
The petitioner filed his opposition to the motion on reasoning that he was informed of his conviction
the ground that he was no longer under only upon being served the warrant for his
probation, 5 his probation period having terminated arrest.2 Prosecutor Analie Velarde opposed his
on August 10, 1983, as previously adverted to. As application on the ground that he was known to be
such, no valid reason existed to revoke the same, uncooperative, habitually absent, and had even
he contended. neglected to inform the court of his change of
address.

3
The MTC denied his application, prompting necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to
petitioner to file a special civil action with the appeal.20 While he did not file an appeal before
Regional Trial Court (RTC). While his first Petition applying for probation, he assailed the validity of
raised the sole issue of the denial of his application the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly
for probation, he filed a Supplemental Petition, assailing the denial of probation. In so doing, he
assailing the validity of the promulgation of the MTC attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as
judgment; and impleaded private complainants. amended by P.D. 1990, which seeks to make
appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner stating that
the latter be immediately released.

The CA, however, reversed the decision of the RTC. VILLAREAL v PEOPLE

FACTS:
ISSUE:
A criminal case was filed against the accused
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to Aquilans. The RTC found them guilty of the crime
probation. charged.

RULING: NO. According to respondents, they immediately

applied for probation after the CA rendered its
Decision (CAG.R. No. 15520) lowering their criminal
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state
liability from the crime of homicide, which carries a
to a penitent qualified offender. It essentially rejects
non-probationable sentence, to slight physical
appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible
injuries, which carries a probationable sentence.
convict to immediately admit his liability and save
Tecson et al.contend that, as a result, they have
the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an
already been discharged from their criminal liability
appeal. The law expressly requires that an accused
and the cases against them closed and
must not have appealed his conviction before he
terminated.
can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accused — to wager ISSUE:
on the result of his appeal — that when his
conviction is finally affirmed on appeal… he now Whether the completion by Tecson et al. of the
applies for probation as an "escape hatch" thus terms and conditions of their probation discharged
rendering nugatory the appellate court's them from their criminal liability, and closed and
affirmance of his conviction.17 terminated the cases against them.

Aside from the goals of according expediency and RULING: NO.

liberality to the accused, the rationale for the
treatment of appeal and probation as mutually The orders of Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 have
exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically no legal effect, as they were issued without
opposed legal positions. An accused applying for jurisdiction.
probation is deemed to have accepted the
judgment. The application for probation is an First, Tecson et al. filed their Applications for
admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the Probation with the wrong court. Part and parcel of
crime which led to the judgment of our criminal justice system is the authority or
conviction.18 This was the reason why the Probation jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate and decide
Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the the case before it. Jurisdiction refers to the power
practice of appealing from judgments of and capacity of the tribunal to hear, try, and
conviction – even if the sentence is probationable – decide a particular case or matter before it.31 That
for the purpose of securing an acquittal and power and capacity includes the competence to
applying for the probation only if the accused fails pronounce a judgment, impose a
in his bid.19 punishment,32 and enforce or suspend33 the
execution of a sentence in accordance with law.
Similarly, in the present case, petitioner cannot
make up his mind whether to question the SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the
judgment, or apply for probation, which is provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it
4
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
and upon application by said defendant within the Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy
period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in
execution of the sentence and place the order to reconcile the two laws, the word "any
defendant on probation for such period and upon person" mentioned in Section 1 [d] of Presidential
such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Decree No. 532 must be omitted such that
Provided, That no application for probation shall be Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to
entertained or granted if the defendant has offenders who are members of the complement or
perfected the appeal from the judgment of to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act
conviction. x x x x (Emphases supplied) No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who are neither
members of the complement or passengers of the
It is obvious from the foregoing provision that the vessel, hence, excluding him from the coverage of
law requires that an application for probation be the law.
filed withthe trial court that convicted and
sentenced the defendant, meaning the court of ISSUE:
origin. Here, the trial court that originally convicted
and sentenced Tecson et al.of the crime of Whether or not the accused is guilty of piracy.
homicide was Branch 121 – not Branch 130 – of the
Caloocan City RTC. RULING: YES

Tecson et al. thus committed a fatal error when To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal
they filed their probation applications with Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy
Caloocan City RTC Branch 130, and not with must be committed on the high seas by any person
Branch 121. We stress that applicants are not at not a member of its complement nor a passenger
liberty to choose the forum in which they may seek thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No.
probation, as the requirement under Section 4 of 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was
the Probation law is substantive and not merely widened to include offenses committed "in
procedural. Considering, therefore, that the Philippine waters." On the other hand, under
probation proceedings were premised on an Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the
unwarranted exercise of authority, we find that coverage of the law on piracy embraces any
Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 never acquired person including "a passenger or member of the
jurisdiction over the case. complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Hence, passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is covered by the
Furthermore, since the accused appealed their
law.
conviction to the CA, they could have been no
longer availed of probation.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor
PEOPLE v TULIN amended the provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no
FACTS: contradiction between the two laws. There is
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need
The accused were charged with the crime of to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential
piracy. The RTC found the accused guilty of the decree did was to widen the coverage of the law,
crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as
RTC decision. well as neighboring states from crimes against the
law of nations. As expressed in one of the "whereas"
Accused-appellant Hiong ratiocinates that he can clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is
no longer be convicted of piracy in Philippine "among the highest forms of lawlessness
waters as defined and penalized in Sections 2[d] condemned by the penal statutes of all countries."
and 3[a], respectively of Presidential Decree No. For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as
532 because Republic Act No. 7659 (effective amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree
January 1, 1994), which amended Article 122 of the No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded
Presidential Decree No. 532. He reasons out that PEOPLE v DELA PNEA
Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered
"superfluous or duplicitous" because both Article 122 FACTS:
5
The accused-appellant was charged with the crime sacks of copra were part of the vessel's cargo. The
of piracy. The RTC found him guilty of piracy. On Information also stated that the vessel's equipment
appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. which consisted of the engine, propeller tube, and
tools were taken and carried away by the
The accused alleged that the prosecution failed to appellant. Furthermore, the Information also stated
prove the elements of piracy under PD 532. He that the personal belongings of the passengers
posits that the Information failed to allege the consisting of two watches, jewelry, cellphone, and
elements of the crime of piracy. Appellant cash money were taken by the appellant and his
maintains that the Information did not state that the armed companions. The appellant was able to
vessel in question was in Philippine waters and that seize these items when he, along with armed
its cargo, equipment, or personal belongings of the companions, boarded the victims' pump boat and
passengers or complement were seized. seized control of the same. Armed with firearms,
appellant and his companions tied Jose's hands,
ISSUE: covered his head, and operated their pump boat.
They travelled to an island in Samar where they
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of piracy.
unloaded the sacks of copra. Thereafter, appellant
RULING: YES and his armed companions travelled to another
island where the engine, propeller tube, and tools
Section 2(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as follows: of the pump boat were taken out and loaded on
appellant's boat.
Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its From the foregoing, the Court finds that the
prosecution was able to establish that the victims'
cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its
pump boat was in Philippine waters when appellant
complement or passengers, irrespective of the
value thereof, by means of violence against or and his armed companions boarded the same and
intimidation of persons or force upon things, seized its cargo, equipment, and the personal
belongings of the passengers.
committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in
Philippine waters shall be considered as piracy.

The Information categorically alleged that the

incident happened along the river bank of Brgy.
San Roque, Municipality of Villareal, Province of
Samar. Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, "Philippine
waters''' is defined as follows:

[A]ll bodies of water, such as but not limited to,

seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting
each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or Iegal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)

From this definition, it is clear that a river is

considered part of Philippine waters.

The Information also clearly alleged that the vessel's

cargo, equipment, and personal belongings of the
passengers were taken by the appellant and his
armed companions. It stated, in no uncertain terms,
that 13 sacks of copra were taken by the appellant
through force and intimidation. Undoubtedly, these
6