Scribd
Upload
123 views1 page

Probation Application Ruling in Llamado Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling denying Ricardo Llamado's petition for probation. Probation laws had been amended over time to provide a narrower period for petitioning for probation. Specifically, the current law only allows petitioning for probation after conviction and sentencing by the trial court, and within the period for perfecting an appeal. Since Llamado had already appealed his conviction, his subsequent petition for probation was barred based on the current probation law.

Uploaded by

cyndijocelle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views1 page

Probation Application Ruling in Llamado Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling denying Ricardo Llamado's petition for probation. Probation laws had been amended over time to provide a narrower period for petitioning for probation. Specifically, the current law only allows petitioning for probation after conviction and sentencing by the trial court, and within the period for perfecting an appeal. Since Llamado had already appealed his conviction, his subsequent petition for probation was barred based on the current probation law.

Uploaded by

cyndijocelle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

RICARDO A.

LLAMADO v HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND RULING:


LEON GAW The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling.
G.R. No. 84850
PD 698 or the Probation Law of 1976, promulgated on 24 July 1976,
FACTS: provided in Section 4 that the court could grant an application for
Petitioner Ricardo A. Llamado, Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance probation ‘at any time’ after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
Corporation was convicted by the RTC in violation of BP Blg. 22. defendant and after an appeal has been taken from the sentence of
Petitioner then manifested intention to appeal, and the RTC then conviction. Thus, the filing of the application for probation was
forwarded the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. After deemed to constitute automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
receiving a notice to file his Appellant’s Brief within 30 days in July
1987, petitioner managed to secure several extensions to file his The amendment of Section 4 of PD No. 968 by PD No. 1257
brief, the last expiring on November 1987. established a definite period for the application for probation,
which is after the trial court shall have convicted and sentenced a
Petitioner, with his new counsel, filed in the RTC a Petition for defendant but before he begins his sentence.
Probation invoking PD No. 968, as amended, but petition was
denied, as the records of the case were already with the CA. A The third amendment of Section 4 of the Probation Law of 1976 by
Manifestation and Petition for Probation was then filed to the CA, P.D. No. 1990 in October 1985 now provides a much narrower
and petitioner requested in the alternative, to remand petition and period, the duration of which will start after the trial court shall
records of the criminal case back to the RTC, for consideration and have convicted and sentenced a defendant and within the period
approval under PD No. 968, as amended. In 1988, petitioner for perfecting an appeal. A new proviso was also appended, which
formally withdrew his appeal, on the condition of the approval of prohibits the grant of an application for probation if the defendant
his Petition for Probation. In compliance with the CA’s resolution, has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment stating it had no
objection to petitioner’s application for probation.

The CA denied Petition for Probation, in which petitioner then


moved for reconsideration which was again denied by the CA.

Petitioner now asks the Court to review and reverse the opinion of
the majority in the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s application for probation is barred
under PD No. 968, as amended.

You might also like