PABLO C. FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE MAXIMO C.
CONTRERAS, respondents.
Facts: The petitioner, when he was President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. Company he failed
to control his outburst and blurted —
You employees in this office are all tanga, son of a bitches (sic), bullshit. Puro kayo walang
utak . . . . Mga anak ng puta . . . . Magkano ba kayo . . . God damn you all.
Thus for humiliating his employees he was accused of multiple grave oral defamation in five (5)
separate Informations instituted by five (5) of his employees, each Information charging him with
gravely maligning them on four different days, i.e., from 9 to 12 April 1980.
The MeTC found him guilty of grave oral defamation in four (4) of the five (5) cases filed against
him, sentenced him to a prison term of 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional
"in each crime committed on each date of each case as alleged in the information(s).
Petitioner elevated his case to the RTC. On 5 August 1991 the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br.
59, affirmed his conviction but appreciated in his favor a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion
or obfuscation. Accordingly, petitioner was sentenced "in each case to a STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8)
MONTHS imprisonment . . ." After he failed to interpose an appeal therefrom the decision of the RTC
became final. The case was then set for execution of judgment by the MeTC which, as a consequence,
issued a warrant of arrest.
Before he could be arrested, petitioner filed for probation which the MeTC denied. He went on
certiorari to CA but the petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a petition before the SC to allow
probation contending that he has not yet lost his right to avail of probation notwithstanding his appeal
from the MeTC to the RTC since "[t]he reason for his appeal was precisely to enable him to avail himself
of the benefits of the Probation Law because the original Decision of the (Metropolitan) Trial Court was
such that he would not then be entitled to probation." He contends that "he appealed from the
judgment of the trial court precisely for the purpose of reducing the penalties imposed upon him by the
said court to enable him to qualify for probation."
ISSUE: whether petitioner is still qualified to avail of probation even after appealing his conviction to the
RTC which affirmed the MeTC?
RULING: NO.
FIRST, Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, clearly mandates that "no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment
of conviction," That an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is
taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear and express mandate of Sec. 4 of the
Probation Law as amended, which opens with a negative clause, "no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. And
where the law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguish; where the law does not make
exception the court should not except.
SECOND, “the penalties imposed by the MeTC were already probationable. Hence, there was no
need to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to within the probationable period.” Multiple prison terms
imposed against an accused found guilty of several offenses in one decision are not, and should not be,
added up. And, the sum of the multiple prison terms imposed against an applicant should not be
determinative of his eligibility for, nay his disqualification from, probation. The multiple prison terms are
distinct from each other, and if none of the terms exceeds the limit set out in the Probation Law, i.e., not
more than six (6) years, then he is entitled to probation, unless he is otherwise specifically disqualified.
THIRD. Petitioner appealed to the RTC not to reduce or even correct the penalties imposed by
the MeTC, but to assert his innocence. Nothing more. The cold fact is that petitioner appealed his
conviction to the RTC not for the sole purpose of reducing his penalties to make him eligible for
probation — since he was already qualified under the MeTC Decision — but rather to insist on his
innocence. The appeal record is wanting of any other purpose. Thus, in his Memorandum before the
RTC, he raised only three (3) statements of error purportedly committed by the MeTC all aimed at his
acquittal: (a) in finding that the guilt of the accused has been established because of his positive
identification by the witness for the prosecution; (b) in giving full faith and credence to the bare
statements of the private complainants despite the absence of corroborating testimonies; and, (c) in not
acquitting him in all the cases
FOURTH, The application for probation was filed way beyond the period allowed by law. P.D. No.
968 says that the application for probation must be filed "within the period for perfecting an appeal;"
From the records it is clear that the application for probation was filed "only after a warrant for the
arrest of petitioner had been issued . . . (and) almost two months after (his) receipt of the Decision" of
the RTC. Hence, in this case, such period for appeal had passed, meaning to say that the Regional Trial
Court's decision had attained finality, and no appeal therefrom was possible under the law.
