Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    People vs. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Law2019upto2024
    1. Grilo S. Tugonon was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide by the RTC and sentenced, then appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals which modified his sentence. 2. Tugonon then applied for probation under P.D. No. 968, which was recommended to be declined since he appealed his sentence. However, the RTC granted his probation application. 3. The issue is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation. The Supreme Court ruled yes, as P.D. No. 1990 clearly states that no probation application can be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from conviction. The RTC failed to properly interpret the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Law2019upto2024
    259 views2 pages
    1. Grilo S. Tugonon was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide by the RTC and sentenced, then appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals which modified his sentence. 2. Tugonon then applied for probation under P.D. No. 968, which was recommended to be declined since he appealed his sentence. However, the RTC granted his probation application. 3. The issue is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation. The Supreme Court ruled yes, as P.D. No. 1990 clearly states that no probation application can be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from conviction. The RTC failed to properly interpret the law.

    Original Description:

    People vs. Evangelista, 253 SCRA 714, G.R. No. 110898 February 20, 1996

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Grilo S. Tugonon was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide by the RTC and sentenced, then appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals which modified his sentence. 2. Tugonon then applied for probation under P.D. No. 968, which was recommended to be declined since he appealed his sentence. However, the RTC granted his probation application. 3. The issue is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation. The Supreme Court ruled yes, as P.D. No. 1990 clearly states that no probation application can be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from conviction. The RTC failed to properly interpret the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    259 views2 pages

    People vs. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Law2019upto2024
    1. Grilo S. Tugonon was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide by the RTC and sentenced, then appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals which modified his sentence. 2. Tugonon then applied for probation under P.D. No. 968, which was recommended to be declined since he appealed his sentence. However, the RTC granted his probation application. 3. The issue is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation. The Supreme Court ruled yes, as P.D. No. 1990 clearly states that no probation application can be entertained if the defendant has perfected an appeal from conviction. The RTC failed to properly interpret the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs. Evangelista, 253 SCRA 714, G.R. No.

    110898 February 20, 1996

    Facts:
    1. Grilo S. Tugonon was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide by the RTC of Misamis
    Oriental and sentenced with one year of prision correccional in its minimum period
    and ordered to pay to the offended party P5,000.00 for medical expense, without
    subsidiary imprisonment, and the costs. |The sentence was lower due to two
    mitigating circumstance incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender.
    2. The defendant then appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which
    modified his sentence to 2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years and 4
    months of prision correccional, as maximum.
    3. On December 28, 1992, private respondent filed a petition for probation under the
    provision of P.D. No. 968. Which the chief probation and parole officers
    recommended to be declined on the ground that by appealing the sentence of the trial
    court, when he could have then applied for probation, private respondent waived the
    right to make his application.
    4. The RTC set aside the recommendation of the Probation officer and granted the
    probation of the respondent.
    5. The law being referred to, P.D. No. 968 was amended by P.D. No. 1990, Section 4
    of the new statutes reads, “Grant of Probation.—Subject to the provisions of this
    Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant,
    and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal,
    suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such
    period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no
    application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
    perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
    6. Private respondent argues, however, that a distinction should be drawn between
    meritorious appeals (like his appeal notwithstanding the appellate court’s affirmance
    of his conviction) and unmeritorious appeals. The RTC on the other hand

    Issue:
    Whether the Regional Trial Court committed a grave abuse of discretion
    amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for granting the probation of the private
    respondent Grilo S. Tugonon.

    Ruling.
    Yes, the RTC’s decision is not guided by the correct application of statutory
    construction on P.D. No. 1990.
    The amendment of the law provides that, “xxxx That no application for probation
    shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
    judgment of conviction.” Thus the argument that a distinction should be made
    between a meritorious and unmeritorious appeal can not apply. If the law makes no
    distinction, neither should the Court, the provision of the law is clear, the intention of
    the amendment was to not let the felons in cases to simply take their changes on
    which application of law would provide a lesser sentence, as the probation's intends to
    be the first opportunity by offenders who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated.
    In this case the RTC failed to properly interpret the law. The perfection of the
    appeal referred in the law refers to the appeal taken from a judgment of conviction by
    the trial court and not that of the appellate court, since under the law an application
    for probation is filed with the trial court which can only grant the same “after it shall
    have convicted and sentenced [the] defendant, and upon application by said
    defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal.”
    Wherefore, the decision granting the parole of Grilo S. Tugonon by the RTC is set
    aside for lack of jurisdiction.

    You might also like