COLINARESvsPEOPLE

FACTS:
ArnelColinareswasfoundguiltyoffrustratedhomicideandsentencedhimtosufferimprisonmentfromtwoyearsand
fourmonthsofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,tosixyearsandonedayofprisionmayor,asmaximum.Sincethe
maximumprobationableimprisonmentunderthelawwasonlyuptosixyears,Arneldidnotqualifyforprobation.
ISSUE:
WhetherornothemaystillapplyforprobationonremandofthecasetothetrialcourtgivenafindingthatArnelis
entitledtoconvictionforaloweroffenseandareducedprobationablepenalty.
HELD:
Ordinarily,Arnelwouldnolongerbeentitledtoapplyforprobation,hehavingappealedfromthejudgmentoftheRTC
convictinghimforfrustratedhomicide.
But,theCourtfindsArnelguiltyonlyofthelessercrimeofattemptedhomicideandholdsthatthemaximumof
thepenaltyimposedonhimshouldbeloweredtoimprisonmentoffourmonthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,totwo
yearsandfourmonthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Withthisnewpenalty,itwouldbebutfairtoallowhim
therighttoapplyforprobationuponremandofthecasetotheRTC.
SomeintheCourtdisagrees.Theycontendthatprobationisamereprivilegegrantedbythestateonlyto
qualifiedconvictedoffenders.Section4oftheprobationlaw(PD968)provides:"Thatnoapplicationforprobation
shallbeentertainedorgrantedifthedefendanthasperfectedtheappealfromthejudgmentofconviction.SinceArnel
appealedhisconvictionforfrustratedhomicide,heshouldbedeemedpermanentlydisqualifiedfromapplyingfor
probation.
But,firstly,whileitistruethatprobationisamereprivilege,thepointisnotthatArnelhastherighttosuch
privilege;hecertainlydoesnothave.Whathehasistherighttoapplyforthatprivilege.TheCourtfindsthathis
maximumjailtermshouldonlybe2yearsand4months.IftheCourtallowshimtoapplyforprobationbecauseofthe
loweredpenalty,itisstilluptothetrialjudgetodecidewhetherornottogranthimtheprivilegeofprobation,taking
intoaccountthefullcircumstancesofhiscase.
Secondly,itistruethatundertheprobationlawtheaccusedwhoappeals"fromthejudgmentofconviction"is
disqualifiedfromavailinghimselfofthebenefitsofprobation.But,asithappens,twojudgmentsofconvictionhave
beenmetedouttoArnel:one,aconvictionforfrustratedhomicidebytheregionaltrialcourt,nowsetaside;and,two,a
convictionforattemptedhomicidebytheSupremeCourt.
IftheCourtchoosestogobythedissentingopinion'shardposition,itwillapplytheprobationlawonArnel
basedonthetrialcourt'sannulledjudgmentagainsthim.Hewillnotbeentitledtoprobationbecauseofthesevere
penaltythatsuchjudgmentimposedonhim.More,theSupremeCourt'sjudgmentofconvictionforalesseroffense
andalighterpenaltywillalsohavetobendovertothetrialcourt'sjudgmentevenifthishasbeenfoundinerror.And,
worse,Arnelwillnowalsobemadetopayforthetrialcourt'serroneousjudgmentwiththeforfeitureofhisrightto
applyforprobation.Angkabayoangnagkasala,anghagupitaysakalabaw(thehorseerrs,thecarabaogetsthe
whip).Whereisjusticethere?
ThedissentingopinionalsoexpressesapprehensionthatallowingArneltoapplyforprobationwoulddilutethe
rulingofthisCourtinFranciscov.CourtofAppeals.thattheprobationlawrequiresthatanaccusedmustnothave
appealedhisconvictionbeforehecanavailhimselfofprobation.ButthereisahugedifferencebetweenFranciscoand
thiscase.
InFrancisco,theMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC)ofMakatifoundtheaccusedguiltyofgraveoral
defamationandsentencedhimtoaprisontermofoneyearandonedaytooneyearandeightmonthsofprision
correccional,aclearlyprobationablepenalty.Probationwashistoask!Still,hechosetoappeal,seekinganacquittal,

henceclearlywaivinghisrighttoapplyforprobation.Whentheacquittaldidnotcome,hewantedprobation.The
Courtwouldnotofcourselethim.Itservedhimrightthathewantedtosavehiscakeandeatittoo.Hecertainlycould
nothavebothappealandprobation.
TheProbationLaw,saidtheCourtinFrancisco,requiresthatanaccusedmustnothaveappealedhisconviction
beforehecanavailhimselfofprobation.Thisrequirement"outlawstheelementofspeculationonthepartofthe
accusedtowagerontheresultofhisappealthatwhenhisconvictionisfinallyaffirmedonappeal,themomentof
truthwellnighathand,andtheserviceofhissentenceinevitable,henowappliesforprobationasan`escapehatch'
thusrenderingnugatorytheappellatecourt'saffirmanceofhisconviction."
Here,however,Arneldidnotappealfromajudgmentthatwouldhaveallowedhimtoapplyforprobation.He
didnothaveachoicebetweenappealandprobation.Hewasnotinapositiontosay,"Bytakingthisappeal,Ichoose
nottoapplyforprobation."Thestiffpenaltythatthetrialcourtimposedonhimdeniedhimthatchoice.Thus,aruling
thatwouldallowArneltonowseekprobationunderthisCourt'sgreatlydiminishedpenaltywillnotdilutethesound
rulinginFrancisco.Itremainsthatthosewhowillappealfromjudgmentsofconviction,whentheyhavetheoptionto
tryforprobation,forfeittheirrighttoapplyforthatprivilege.
Besides,inappealinghiscase,Arnelraisedtheissueofcorrectnessofthepenaltyimposedonhim.Heclaimed
thattheevidenceatbestwarrantedhisconvictiononlyforattempted,notfrustrated,homicide,whichcrimecalledfora
probationablepenalty.Inaway,therefore,Arnelsoughtfromthebeginningtobringdownthepenaltytothelevel
wherethelawwouldallowhimtoapplyforprobation.
Inarealsense,theCourt'sfindingthatArnelwasguilty,notoffrustratedhomicide,butonlyofattempted
homicide,isanoriginalconvictionthatforthefirsttimeimposesonhimaprobationablepenalty.HadtheRTCdone
himrightfromthestart,itwouldhavefoundhimguiltyofthecorrectoffenseandimposedonhimtherightpenaltyof
twoyearsandfourmonthsmaximum.ThiswouldhaveaffordedArneltherighttoapplyforprobation.
TheProbationLawneverintendedtodenyanaccusedhisrighttoprobationthroughnofaultofhis.The
underlyingphilosophyofprobationisoneofliberalitytowardstheaccused.Suchphilosophyisnotservedbyaharsh
andstringentinterpretationofthestatutoryprovisions.AsJusticeVicenteV.MendozasaidinhisdissentinFrancisco,
theProbationLawmustnotberegardedasamereprivilegetobegiventotheaccusedonlywhereitclearlyappearshe
comeswithinitsletter;todosowouldbetodisregardtheteachinginmanycasesthattheProbationLawshouldbe
appliedinfavoroftheaccusednotbecauseitisacriminallawbuttoachieveitsbeneficentpurpose.
OneofthosewhodissentfromthisdecisionpointsoutthatallowingArneltoapplyforprobationafterhe
appealedfromthetrialcourt'sjudgmentofconvictionwouldnotbeconsistentwiththeprovisionofSection2thatthe
probationlawshouldbeinterpretedto"provideanopportunityforthereformationofapenitentoffender."Anaccused
likeArnelwhoappealsfromajudgmentconvictinghim,itisclaimed,showsnopenitence.
ThismaybetrueifthetrialcourtmetedouttoArnelacorrectjudgmentofconviction.Here,however,it
convictedArnelofthewrongcrime,frustratedhomicidethatcarriedapenaltyinexcessof6years.HowcantheCourt
expecthimtofeelpenitentoveracrime,whichastheCourtnowfinds,hedidnotcommit?Heonlycommitted
attemptedhomicidewithitsmaximumpenaltyof2yearsand4months.
Ironically,iftheCourtdeniesArneltherighttoapplyforprobationunderthereducedpenalty,itwouldbe
sendinghimstraightbehindbars.Itwouldberobbinghimofthechancetoinsteadundergoreformationasapenitent
offender,defeatingtheverypurposeoftheprobationlaw.
Atanyrate,whatisclearisthat,hadtheRTCdonewhatwasrightandimposedonArnelthecorrectpenaltyof
twoyearsandfourmonthsmaximum,hewouldhavehadtherighttoapplyforprobation.Noonecouldsaywith
certaintythathewouldhaveavailedhimselfoftherighthadtheRTCdonerightbyhim.Theideamaynotevenhave
crossedhismindpreciselysincethepenaltyhegotwasnotprobationable.