LLAMADO VS.

CA and Leon Gaw

June 29, 1989
Petition to review the decision of the CA
FELICIANO, J.

FACTS:
 Ricardo Llamado (Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance Corp) was prosecuted for violation of BP Blg. 22. He had co-
signed (with the President of the corp.) a post-dated check payable to private respondent Leon Gaw in the
amount of P186,500, which was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds.
 Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of P200,000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is also required to reimburse to respondent the amount of P186,500 plus
cost of suit. After the decision of the trial court was read to him, petitioner through counsel orally manifested
that he was taking an appeal. TC forwarded records of the case to the CA.
 Petitioner through his counsel received from CA a notice to file his Appellant’s Brief within 30 days. He managed
to secure several extensions of time with which to file his brief, the last extension expiring on 18 Nov 1987.
 Llamado, even while his Appellant’s Brief was being finalized by his then counsel of record, sought advice from
another counselor. Petitioner, with assistance of his new counsel, filed in RTC a Petition for Probation invoking
PD 968, as amended.
 The petition was not accepted by the lower court since the records of the case had already been forwarded to
the CA.
 Petitioner then filed with the CA a “Manifestation and Petition for Probation” dated 16 November 1987,
enclosing a copy of the Petition for Probation that he submitted to the trial court. He asked the CA to grant his
petition for Probation or to remand the Petition back to the trial court.
 The CA denied the Petition for Probation.
 Petitioner now asks this court to review and reverse the opinion of the majority in the CA .

ISSUE:
WON petitioner’s application for probation in this situation is barred under PD 968, as amended.

HELD:
 Decision of CA was affirmed.

RATIO:
YES the application for probation is already barred. There were two amendments that happened to the law, and the
present law allows applications for probation “after the TC shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and—within
the period of perfecting an appeal”. It prohibits the grant of an application for probation if the defendant has perfected
an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

 ORIGINAL LAW:
o Under Section 4 of PD 968, the trial court could grant an application for probation “at any time” “after
it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant” and certainly “after an appeal has been taken from
the sentence of conviction”. Thus, the filing of the application for probation was deemed to constitute
automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.

 First Amendment by PD 1257

 - It has established a prolonged but definite period during which an application for probation may be
granted by the trial court :“After the trial court shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant but
before he begins to serve his sentence.”
- The cut-off time—the commencement of service of sentence—takes place not only after an appeal has
been taken from the sentence of conviction, but even after judgment has been rendered by the appellate
court and after judgment has become final.
- In this last situation, it provides that “the application for probation shall be acted upon by the trial court
on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court”

*Had the present case arisen while Section 4 of the statute as amended by PD 1257 was still in effect,
Llamado’s application for probation would have had to be granted as it was filed well before the cut-off
time.

 Second Amendment by PD 1990.

- This establishes a much narrower period during which an application for probation may be filed with
the TC:
“after the TC shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and—within the period of perfecting an
appeal”
- It prohibits the grant of an application for probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction.

TC has lost jurisdiction over the case when petitioner 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.