Llamado v.

Court of Appeals
June 29, 1989 | Feliciano, J. | Penalties - Execution and Service - Probation

PETITIONER: Ricardo Llamado

RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals and Leon Gaw
FACTS: “after the trial court shall have convicted and sentenced
1. Ricardo Llamado (Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance a defendant and—within the period of perfecting an
Corp) was prosecuted for violation of BP Blg. 22. He appeal”. It prohibits the grant of an application for
had co-signed (with the President of the corp.) a post- probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction.
dated check payable to private respondent Leon Gaw in
2. ORIGINAL LAW:
the amount of P186,500, which was dishonored for lack
 Under Section 4 of PD 968, the trial court could
of sufficient funds.
grant an application for probation “at any time”
2. Llamado was sentenced to imprisonment for a period
“after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
of 1 year and to pay a fine of P200,000 with subsidiary
defendant” and certainly “after an appeal has been
imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is also required
taken from the sentence of conviction”. Thus, the
to reimburse to respondent the amount of P186,500 plus
filing of the application for probation was deemed to
cost of suit. After the decision of the trial court was read
constitute automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
to him, Llamado through counsel orally manifested
3. First Amendment by PD 1257
that he was taking an appeal. The trial court forwarded
- It has established a prolonged but definite period
records of the case to the CA.
during which an application for probation may
3. Llamado through his counsel received from CA a
be granted by the trial court :“After the trial court
notice to file his Appellant’s Brief within 30 days. He
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant but
managed to secure several extensions of time with which
before he begins to serve his sentence.”
to file his brief, the last extension expiring on 18 Nov
- The cut-off time—the commencement of service of
1987.
sentence—takes place not only after an appeal has
4. Llamado, even while his Appellant’s Brief was being
been taken from the sentence of conviction, but even
finalized by his then counsel of record, sought advice
after judgment has been rendered by the appellate
from another counselor. Llalamdo, with assistance of
court and after judgment has become final.
his new counsel, filed in the RTC a Petition for
- In this last situation, it provides that “the application
Probation invoking PD 968, as amended.
for probation shall be acted upon by the trial court
5. The petition was not accepted by the lower court
on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court”
since the records of the case had already been forwarded
*Had the present case arisen while
to the CA. Section 4 of the statute as amended by PD
6. Llamado then filed with the CA a “Manifestation 1257 was still in effect, Llamado’s
and Petition for Probation” dated 16 November 1987, application for probation would have had
enclosing a copy of the Petition for Probation that he to be granted as it was filed well before
submitted to the trial court. He asked the CA to grant his the cut-off time.
petition for Probation or to remand the Petition back to
4. Second Amendment by PD 1990.
the trial court.
- This establishes a much narrower period during
7. The CA denied the Petition for Probation.
which an application for probation may be filed with
8. Llamado now asks this court to review and reverse the
the Trial Court :“after the Trial Court shall have
opinion of the majority in the CA .
convicted and sentenced a defendant and—within
HELD: CA decision AFFIRMED. the period of perfecting an appeal”
ISSUE & RATIO: WON Llamado's application for - It prohibits the grant of an application for
probation is already barred under PD 968, as amended? probation if the defendant has perfected an
—YES. appeal from the judgment of conviction.
1. There were two amendments that happened to the law,
and the present law allows applications for probation
5. The trial court has lost jurisdiction over the case when
Llamado perfected his appeal. The oral manifestation
made after judgment was rendered was considered by
the RTC as being equal to a written notice of appeal.