Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 Dimakuta v. People

    Uploaded by

    Mark Evan Garcia
    409 views3 pages
    Petitioner Dimakuta was convicted of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law and sentenced to 10-17 years imprisonment. On appeal, the CA found him guilty of a lesser offense with a probationable penalty of 6 months to 4 years imprisonment. Petitioner then sought to apply for probation but the CA denied it. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner cannot avail of probation because he perfected his appeal by claiming innocence rather than simply questioning the penalty imposed, as required by the Probation Law. The Court outlined limited grounds for appealing while still allowing probation, such as appealing the penalty to make it probationable, but these did not apply to petitioner's appeal disputing his guilt.

    Original Description:

    CRIM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner Dimakuta was convicted of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law and sentenced to 10-17 years imprisonment. On appeal, the CA found him guilty of a lesser offense with a probationable penalty of 6 months to 4 years imprisonment. Petitioner then sought to apply for probation but the CA denied it. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner cannot avail of probation because he perfected his appeal by claiming innocence rather than simply questioning the penalty imposed, as required by the Probation Law. The Court outlined limited grounds for appealing while still allowing probation, such as appealing the penalty to make it probationable, but these did not apply to petitioner's appeal disputing his guilt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    409 views3 pages

    1 Dimakuta v. People

    Uploaded by

    Mark Evan Garcia
    Petitioner Dimakuta was convicted of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law and sentenced to 10-17 years imprisonment. On appeal, the CA found him guilty of a lesser offense with a probationable penalty of 6 months to 4 years imprisonment. Petitioner then sought to apply for probation but the CA denied it. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner cannot avail of probation because he perfected his appeal by claiming innocence rather than simply questioning the penalty imposed, as required by the Probation Law. The Court outlined limited grounds for appealing while still allowing probation, such as appealing the penalty to make it probationable, but these did not apply to petitioner's appeal disputing his guilt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    #01 DIMAKUTA V.

    PEOPLE stating that Colineras does not apply because petitioner put in issue on
    (G.R. No. 206513 / 20 October 2015) appeal the merits of their conviction and did not simply assail the
    By: AMBE propriety of the penalties imposed. CA applied the ruling in Lagrosa v.
    People instead.

    Topic: Probation Law ISSUE: Can petitioner avail the benefits of Probation Law even if an
    Petitioner: MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA MARUHOM appeal has already been perfected?
    Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHIILPPINES
    Ponente: PERALTA, J. RULING: No.

    Section 4 of the Probation Law provides that the application for


    FACTS: Petitioner Dimakuta alias Boyet was indicted for Violation of probation must be filed with the trial court within the 15-day period for
    Section 5 Paragraph (b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 or the perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such period is intended to
    Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated,
    Discriminatory Act. He committed a lascivious conduct upon the person to avail themselves of probation at the first opportunity. If the
    of AAA, who was a sixteen (16) year old minor, embracing her, touching application for probation is filed beyond the 15-day period, then the
    her breast and private part against her will and without her consent. judgment becomes final and executory and the lower court can no longer
    act on the application for probation. On the other hand, if a notice of
    RTC convicted petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to appeal is perfected, the trial court that rendered the judgment of
    suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) conviction is divested of any jurisdiction to act on the case, except the
    years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) execution of the judgment when it has become final and executory.
    months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.
    If this Court will adopt as jurisprudential doctrine the opinion that
    Petitioner appealed to CA arguing that even assuming he an accused may still be allowed to apply for probation even if he
    committed the acts imputed, still there is no evidence showing that has filed a notice of appeal, it must be categorically stated that such
    the same were done without the victim’s consent or through force, appeal must be limited to the following grounds:
    duress, intimidation or violence upon her. OSG opined that petitioner
    should have been convicted only of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 1. When the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the
    336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in view of the prosecution’s failure penalty imposed by the lower court, which when corrected would
    to establish that the lascivious acts were attended by force or coercion entitle the accused to apply for probation; and
    because the victim was asleep at the time the alleged acts were
    committed. 2. When the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which the
    accused was convicted and that the accused should only be liable to the
    CA adopted OSG’s recommendation and found petitioner guilty of Acts of lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime for which he
    Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and was sentenced to suffer was originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the
    the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as probationable period.
    minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
    as maximum. In addition, before an appeal is filed based on the grounds enumerated
    above, the accused should first file a motion for reconsideration of the
    Petitioner filed a motion before the CA to allow him to apply for decision of the trial court anchored on the above-stated grounds and
    probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. CA denied his motion manifest his intent to apply for probation if the motion is granted. The
    motion for reconsideration will give the trial court an opportunity to imposed by the trial court. Allowing the afore-stated grounds for appeal
    review and rectify any errors in its judgment, while the manifestation of would give an accused the opportunity to apply for probation if his
    the accused will immediately show that he is agreeable to the judgment ground for appeal is found to be meritorious by the appellate court, thus,
    of conviction and does not intend to appeal from it, but he only seeks a serving the purpose of the Probation Law to promote the reformation of
    review of the crime and/or penalty imposed, so that in the event that the a penitent offender outside of prison.
    penalty will be modified within the probationable limit, he will
    immediately apply for probation. Without such motion for In this case, petitioner appealed the trial court's judgment of
    reconsideration, the notice of appeal should be denied outright. conviction before the CA alleging that it was error on the part of the
    RTC to have found him guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of
    The notice of appeal should contain the following averments: R.A. No. 7610. He argued that the RTC should not have given much faith
    and credence to the testimony of the victim because it was tainted with
    (1) that an earlier motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied inconsistencies. Moreover, he went on to assert that even assuming he
    by the trial court; committed the acts imputed on him, still there was no evidence showing
    that the lascivious acts were committed without consent or through
    (2) that the appeal is only for reviewing the penalty imposed by the force, duress, intimidation or violence because the victim at that time
    lower court or the conviction should only be for a lesser crime was in deep slumber. It is apparent that petitioner anchored his
    necessarily included in the crime charged in the information; and appeal on a claim of innocence and/or lack of sufficient evidence to
    support his conviction of the offense charged, which is clearly
    (3) that the accused-appellant is not seeking acquittal of the conviction. inconsistent with the tenor of the Probation Law that only qualified
    penitent offender are allowed to apply for probation. The CA, therefore,
    What Section 4 of the Probation Law prohibits is an appeal from the did not err in applying the similar case of Lagrosa v. People wherein the
    judgment of conviction, which involves a review of the merits of the protestations of petitioners therein did not simply assail the propriety of
    case and the determination of whether the accused is entitled to the penalties imposed but meant a profession of guiltlessness, if not
    acquittal. However, under the recommended grounds for appeal which complete innocence.
    were enumerated earlier, the purpose of the appeal is not to assail the
    judgment of conviction but to question only the propriety of the To be sure, if petitioner intended in the first instance to be entitled
    sentence, particularly the penalty imposed or the crime for which the to apply for probation he should have admitted his guilt and
    accused was convicted, as the accused intends to apply for probation buttressed his appeal on a claim that the penalty imposed by the
    upon correction of the penalty or conviction for the lesser offense. If the RTC was erroneous or that he is only guilty of a lesser offense
    CA finds it proper to modify the sentence, and the penalty finally necessarily included in the crime for which he was originally convicted.
    imposed by the appellate court is within the probationable period, or the Unfortunately for him, he already perfected his appeal and it is late in
    crime for which the accused is eventually convicted imposes a the day to avail the benefits of probation despite the imposition of the CA
    probationable penalty, application for probation after the case is of a probationable penalty.
    remanded to the trial court for execution should be allowed.

    It is believed that the recommended grounds for appeal do not


    contravene Section 4 of the Probation Law, which expressly prohibits
    only an appeal from the judgment of conviction. In such instances, the
    ultimate reason of the accused for filing the appeal based on the afore-
    stated grounds is to determine whether he may avail of probation based
    on the review by the appellate court of the crime and/or penalty

    You might also like