SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. L-69810-14. June 19, 1985.]
TEODULO RURA , petitioner, vs. THE HON. GERVACIO A. LOPENA,
Presiding Judge of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubigon-
Clarin, Tubigon, Bohol and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondents.
DECISION
ABAD SANTOS , J : p
This case involves the application of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as
amended), more speci cally Section 9 thereof which disquali es from probation those
persons:
"(c) who have previously been convicted by nal judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day
and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos."
Petitioner Teodulo Rura was accused, tried and convicted of ve (5) counts of
estafa committed on different dates in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubigon-
Clarin, Tubigon, Bohol, denominated as Criminal Case Nos. 523, 524, 525, 526 and 527.
LLpr
The ve cases were jointly tried and a single decision was rendered on August
18, 1983. Rura was sentenced to a total prison term of seventeen (17) months and
twenty- ve (25) days. In each criminal case the sentence was three (3) months and
fifteen (15) days.
Rura appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Bohol but said court a rmed the
decision of the lower court. When the case was remanded to the court of origin for
execution of judgment, Rura applied for probation. The application was opposed by a
probation o cer of Bohol on the ground that Rura is disquali ed for probation under
Sec. 9 (c) of the Probation Law quoted above. The court denied the application for
probation. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence the instant
petition.
The question which is raised is whether or not the petitioner is disquali ed for
probation.
In denying the application for probation, the respondent judge said:
"Though the ve estafa cases were jointly tried and decided by the Court
convicting the accused thereof, yet the dates of commission are different. Upon
conviction, he was guilty of said offenses as of the dates of commission of the
acts complained of." (Rollo, p. 58.)
Upon the other hand, the petitioner argues:
"We beg to disagree. There is no previous conviction by nal judgment to
speak of. The ve (5) cases of Estafa were tried jointly and there is only one
decision rendered on the same date — August 18, 1983. It could not be presumed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
that accused-petitioner had been convicted one after the other for the ve cases
of Estafa because the conviction in these cases took place within the same day,
August 18, 1983 by means of a Joint Decision, and not in a separate decision. LLphil
"Previous conviction, we submit, presupposes that there is a prior sentence
or that there was already a decision rendered which convicted the accused. In this
instant cases, however, there is only one decision rendered on the ve (5) counts
of Estafa which was promulgated on the same date. In other words the effects of
conviction does not retract to the date of the commission of the offense as the
trial court held." (Id., pp. 8-9.)
We hold for the petitioner. When he applied for probation he had no previous
conviction by nal judgment. When he applied for probation the only conviction against
him was the judgment which was the subject of his application. The statute relates
"previous" to the date of conviction, not to the date of the commission of the crime.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the respondent judge is directed to give
due course to the petitioner's application for probation. No costs. LLphil
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
