Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. 108747 Case Digest (Criminal Procedure)

July 12, 2018 | Author: AizaFerrerEbina | Category: Probation, Appeal, Judgment (Law), Certiorari, Crimes
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Criminal Procedure Case Digests FRANCISCO v. CA G.R. No. 108747, April 6, 1995 Motion to Quash See: Rule 117 ...


FRANCISCO v. CA G.R. No. 108747, April 6, 1995 Motion to Quash Rule 117 Section 3 (Grounds) See: Rule 117 Section 9 (Failure to move to quash or to allege an  ground there!or) FACTS: Petit Petition ioner, er, as Presi Presiden dentt and Genera Generall Manage Managerr of ASP ASPAC AC Trans. rans. Company, failed to control control his outburst and blurted:  You  You employees in this oce oce are all tanga, son of a bitches, bullshit. bullshit. Puro Puro !ayo "alang uta!. Mga ana! ng puta. Mag!ano ba !ayo. God damn you all.  Thus for humiliating his employees he "as accused of multiple gra#e oral defamation in $#e separate %nformations instituted by $#e of his employees, each %nformation charging him "ith gra#ely maligning them on four di&erent days, i.e., from ' to () April ('*+. n ) -anuary (''+, after nearly ten years, the MeTCMa!ati found petitioner guilty of gra#e oral defamation in four of the $#e cases $led against him. /ot satis$ satis$ed ed "ith "ith the 0ecisi 0ecision on of the MeTC, MeTC, and insist insisting ing on his innoce innocenc nce, e, petitioner ele#ated his case to the 1TC. n 2 August (''( the 1TC, armed his con#iction but appreciated in his fa#o fa#orr a miti mitiga gati ting ng cir circums cumsta tanc nce e anal analog ogou ous s to pass passio ion n or obfu obfusc scat atio ion. n. Accordingly, petitioner "as sentenced in each case to a straight penalty of  eight months imprisonment after he failed to interpose an appeal therefrom the decision of the 1TC became $nal. The case "as then set for e3ecution of   4udgment by the MeTC MeTC "hich, as a conse5uence, issued a "arrant of arrest. arrest. 6ut7before he could be arrested petitioner $led an application for probation "hich the MeTC denied. 8orth"ith he "ent to the Court of Appeals on certiorari "hich dismissed his petition. %nitially, the Court notes that the petitioner has failed to comply "ith the pro#isions of Supreme Court Circular /o. )*'( of September 9, (''(. iola iolatio tion n of the circu circular lar is su sucie cient nt cause cause for dis dismis missal sal of the petiti petition. on. Petitioner does not allege any"here in the petition that he had as!ed the respondent court to reconsider its abo#e order; in fact, he had failed to gi#e the court an opportunity to correct itself if it had, in fact, committed any error on the matter. * says that the application for probation must be $led ?"ithin the period for perfecting an appeal;? but in this case, such period for appeal had passed, meaning to say that the 1TC=s decision had attained $nality, and no appeal therefrom "as possible under the la". #en granting that an appeal from the appellate court=s 4udgment is contemplated by P.0. '>*, in addition to the 4udgment rendered by the trial court, that appellate 4udgment had become $nal and "as, in fact, up for actual e3ecution before the application for probation "as attempted by the petitioner. The petitioner did not $le his application for probation before the $nality of the said 4udgment; therefore, the petitioner=s attempt at probation "as $led too late.

ur minds cannot simply rest easy on the proposition that an application for probation may yet be granted e#en if it "as $led only after 4udgment has become $nal, the con#iction already already set for e3ecution e3ecution and a "arrant of arrest issued for ser#ice of sentence.  The argument that petitioner had to a"ait the remand of the case to the MeTC, "hich necessarily must be after the decision of the 1TC had become $nal, for him to $le the application for probation "ith the trial court, is to stretc stretch h the the la" beyond beyond compr comprehe ehens nsion ion.. The la", la", simply simply,, does does not allo" allo" probation after an appeal has been perfected. Accordi Accordingly ngly,, consideri considering ng that pre#ail pre#ailing ing 4urispr 4urispruden udence ce treats treats appeal appeal and probation as mutually e3clusi#e remedies, and petitioner appealed from his con# con#ic icti tion on by the the MeT MeTC alth althou ough gh the the impo impose sed d pena penalt ltie ies s "er "ere alr already eady probationable, and in his appeal, he asserted only his innocence and did not e#en raise the issue of the propriety of the penalties imposed on him, and $nally, he $led an application for probation outside the period for perfecting an appeal appeal grant granting ing he "as other" other"is ise e eligib eligible le for proba probatio tion, n, the instan instantt petition for re#ie" should be as it is hereby 0/%0.

RATIO: RATIO: R"l# 117 117 S#$%io& S#$%io& ' ()* Gro"&+ Gro"&+. . "he accused ma move to quash the com#laint or in!ormation on an o! the !ollo$ing grounds: grounds: (a) "hat the !acts charged do not constitute an o%ense& (') (') "hat "hat the the cour courtt tri tring ng the the case case has has no uri urisd sdic icti tion on over over the the o%ense charged& (c) "hat the court tring the case has no urisdiction over the #erson o! the accused& (d) "hat the ocer $ho *led the in!ormation had no authorit to do so& (e) "hat it does not con!orm su'stantiall to the #rescri'ed !orm& ()* T-% T-% /or# /or# %-& %-& o&# o#&# o#&# i $-r $-r#+ #+ #2 #2$# $#p% p% 3-#& 3-#&  i&l# i&l# p"&i-/#&% )or vrio" o#&# i pr#$ri#+  l3 (g) "hat the criminal action or lia'ilit has 'een e+tinguished& (h) "hat "hat it conta contains ins averme averments nts $hich $hich,, i! true, true, $ould $ould const constitu itute te a legal e+cuse or usti*cation& (i) "hat the accused has 'een #reviousl convicted or acquitted o!  the o%ens o%ense e charg charged ed,, or the case agains againstt him him $as $as dismis dismissed sed or  other$ise terminated $ithout his e+#ress consent  R"l# 117 S#$%io& 9. Fil"r# Fil"r# %o /ov# %o "- or %o ll## & ro"&+ %-#r#)or. "he !ailure o! the accused to assert an ground o! a motion to quash 'e!ore he #leads to the com#laint or in!ormation, either  'ecause he did not *le a motion to quash or !ailed to allege the same in said motion, shall 'e deemed a $aiver o! an o'ections e+ce#t those 'ased on the grounds #rovided !or in #aragra#hs (a), ('), (g), and (i) o! Section 3 o! this Rule-

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.