ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University
School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila
Fraternity). Hazing was pre-requisite in joining for which Lenny was one of few who
had undergone the process. After the initiation, Lenny’s condition worsened due to
the blows he received, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was
pronounced dead on arrival.
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Aquilans. Four of
the accused (Tecson, et. al.) were found to be guilty of homicide by the trial court
but was reduced to crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of
arresto menor by the Court of Appeals. However, upon appeal to the Supreme
Court by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they
should be liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead.
In Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration, Tecson et. al. clarified the effect of
the decision of the Supreme Court to their criminal liability. According to Tecson et.
al., they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision
lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, which carries a
non-probationable sentence, to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable
sentence. Hence, they have already been discharged from their criminal liability and
the cases against them closed and terminated by virtue of their granted Applications
for Probation for which the terms therein are already been complied with.
ISSUE:
Whether Tecson et. al. can be covered by the Probation Law despite their appeal of
conviction?
HELD:
Yes. First, the Court in resolving this issue ruled that the RTC Branch 130 had no
jurisdiction to act on the probation applications of Tecson et. al. for the law requires
that an application for probation be filed with the trial court that convicted and
sentenced the defendant, meaning the court of origin (Branch 121). Hence, its grant
of probation with Tecson et. al. is void.
However, the Court abandoning its previous stance on ineligibility of those who have
appealed their conviction to probation, citing the then recent case of Colinares vs.
People that the Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to
probation through no fault of his. Had the RTC done what was right and imposed the
correct penalty, he would have had the right to apply for probation. Moreover, the
Court was quick to clarify that it remains that those who will appeal from judgments
of conviction, when they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to
apply for that privilege.