This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-01 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Indeed, one of the legal prerequisites of probation is that the offender must not have appealed the conviction.[61] In the 2003 case Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals,[62] this Court was faced with the issue of whether a convict may still apply for probation even after the trial court has imposed a non-probationable verdict, provided that the CA later on lowers the original penalty to a sentence within the probationable limit. In that case, the trial court sentenced the accused to a maximum term of eight years of prisión mayor, which was beyond the coverage of the Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after the CA reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prisión correccional. | |||||
|
2006-08-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court's declaration on the effect of probation on Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, we should add, ought to be considered an obiter in view of the fact that Dela Torre was not even entitled to probation because he appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court which, however, affirmed his conviction. It has been held that the perfection of an appeal is a relinquishment of the alternative remedy of availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who, although already eligible, did not at once apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal.[9] | |||||