B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Llamado vs. Court of Appeals Llamado vs. Court of Appeals
I. Recit-ready summary
Petitioner Ricardo A. Llamado was Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance Corporation.
Together with Jacinto N Pascual, Sr., President of the same corporation, Llamado was
prosecuted for violation of BP 22 in Criminal Case No. 85-38653 in RTC-Manila,
Branch 49. The 2 co-signed a postdated check payable to private respondent Leon
Gaw worth Php186,500. The check was dishonored due to lack of sufficient funds.
In 1987, the RTC sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year of prision correccional
and to pay a fine of Php200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
He also had to reimburse Gaw Php186,500 plus cost of the suit.
On Mar. 20, Llamado orally manifested that he was taking an appeal. The
records of the case were then forwarded to the CA. He asked for extensions to appeal,
with the last being on Nov. 18.
On Nov. 30, however, Llamado filed in the RTC a Petition for Probation
invoking PD No. 968, as amended. Llamado then filed with the CA a Petition for
Probation dated Nov. 16.
In 1988, Llamado withdrew his appeal. The CA also denied his petition.
The issue is WON Llamado’s application for probation is barred under PD No.
968, as amended. The most recent amendment, PD 1990, required that the defendant
may file within the period of perfecting an appeal, or 15 days after promulgation
according to Section 5 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
However, Llamado already orally manifested his appeal on Mar. 20, 1987; the
oral manifestation is considered equal to a written notice of appeal by the RTC. From
that date, he already lost his right to apply for probation when he perfected his appeal
from judgment of conviction. Thus, Llamado’s petition for probation is denied.
II. Facts of the case
Ricardo Llamado – Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance Corporation/co-maker
Jacinto Pascual Sr. – President of Pan Asia Finance Corporation/co-maker
Leon Gaw - Payee
Petitioner Ricardo A. Llamado was Treasurer of Pan Asia Finance
Corporation. Together with Jacinto N Pascual, Sr., President of the same
corporation, Llamado was prosecuted for violation of BP 22 in Criminal Case No. 85-
38653 in RTC-Manila, Branch 49. The 2 co-signed a postdated check payable to
private respondent Leon Gaw worth Php186,500. The check was dishonored due to
lack of sufficient funds.
G.R. NO: 84850
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: BP 22 in relation with Probation Law
June 29, 1989
In a decision dated Mar. 10, 1987, the RTC convicted Llamado alone since
Pascual fled the country (thus, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the latter). Llamado was
sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year of prision correccional and to pay a fine of
Php200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He also had to
reimburse Gaw Php186,500 plus cost of the suit.
On Mar. 20, after the decision of RTC was read to him, Llamado thru
counsel orally manifested that he was taking an appeal. The records of the case
were then forwarded to CA. On Jul. 9, Llamado received from CA a notice to file his
Appellant’s Brief within 30 days. He asked for many extensions, with the last dating
on Nov. 18.
On Nov. 30, Llamado, thru his NEW counsel, filed in the RTC a Petition
for Probation invoking PD No. 968, as amended. The Petition was not accepted by
the RTC since the records are already with the CA.
Llamado then filed with the CA a Petition for Probation dated Nov. 16. He asked
the CA to grant his petition or remand the petition back to the RTC for consideration
and approval under PD No. 968, as amended. He also prayed that the running of
the period for filing his Appellant’s Brief be held in abeyance until after CA
acted on his Petition for Probation.
In 1988, Llamado withdrew his appeal conditioned on the approval of the
Petition for Probation. On Jun. 17, the CA denied the petition.
III. Issue/s
1. (MAIN ISSUE) WON Llamado’s application for probation, which was
filed after a notice of appeal had been filed with the RTC, after the
records of the case have been forwarded to CA and the CA had issued
the notice to file Appellant’s Brief, after several extensions of time to
file the brief had been sought from and granted by the CA BUT
BEFORE actual filing of such brief, is barred under PD No. 968, as
amended. – YES
(Or alternatively, whether by the time petitioner Llamado's application
for probation, he had already "perfected an appeal" from the
judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. YES.)
2. WON CA has jurisdiction to entertain the application for probation – YES
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
1. A HISTORY OF SECTION 4, P.D. No. 968
PONENTE: Feliciano, J
DIGEST MAKER: Rainman edited by Julia
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Llamado vs. Court of Appeals
P.D. No. 968, also known as the Probation Law of 1976, is provided as
follows:
"Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this
Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced
a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant,
suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant
on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions
as it may deem best. Probation may be granted whether the
sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An
application for probation shall be led with the trial court, with
notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from
the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall
be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic
withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable."
Under this section, the RTC 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.”
On Dec. 1, 1977, P.D. No. 1257 amended Section 4 as follows:
“"Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this
Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his
sentence and upon his application, suspend the execution of
said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
xxx
An application for probation shall be filed with trial court,
with notice to appellate court if an appeal has been taken
from the sentence of conviction. The filling of the application
shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the
automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. In the latter case
however, if the application is filed on or after the date of the
judgment of the appellate court.”
Following the amendment, the period became “AFTER the trial court shall
have convicted and sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his
sentence.” The cut-off time – commencement of service of sentence – takes
place AFTER judgment has been rendered by the appellate court and
after judgment has become final. The application for probation shall be
acted upon by the RTC on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court.
G.R. NO: 84850
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: BP 22 in relation with Probation Law
June 29, 1989
Llamado vs. Court of Appeals
BACK TO THE CURRENT CASE: SECTION 4 AMENDED BY PD
NO. 1990
On Oct. 5, 1985, Section 4 was amended by P.D. No. 1990. Section 4
now reads as follows,
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this
Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said
defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend
the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as
it may deem best; Provided, That no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected
the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
“Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term
of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall
be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application shall
be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
“An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.”
In this amended Section 4, the phrase which said the filing of an application for
probation means “automatic withdrawal of pending appeal” is removed.
Based on the edited provision, the main issue may be interpreted as
WON Llamado submitted his application for probation within the
period for perfecting an appeal from judgment of conviction of RTC
Manila.
The period for perfecting an appeal, according to Section 5 of Rule 122 of the Rules
of Court, is 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgment appealed from. An
appeal is perfected by simply filing a notice of appeal with the RTC which rendered
the judgment appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the People of the
Philippines. Llamado manifested orally and in open court his intention to appeal at
the time of promulgation, which is equivalent to a written notice of appeal and treated
as such by the Regional Trial Court.
The petitioner lost his right to apply for probation when he perfected
his appeal from judgment of conviction.
PONENTE: Feliciano, J
DIGEST MAKER: Rainman edited by Julia
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED June 29, 1989

Llamado vs. Court of Appeals Llamado vs. Court of Appeals

(MAYBE IRRELEVANT STAT CON-RELATED STUFF)

Llamado contends that the “period for perfecting an appeal” and “if the
defendant has perfected an appeal from judgment of conviction” should not
be interpreted to refer to Rule 122. He also points out that the “wheareas”
clauses of PD 1990 did not mention the 15-day period. He also mentions
that the true legislative intent of PD 1990 should not apply to him who filed
his petition at the earliest opportunity then prevailing and withdrew his
appeal.

These contentions by Llamado did not persuade the Court. The Whereas
clauses do not form part of the statute and do not control the specific terms
of the statute. The Whereas clauses do not modify the terms of Section 4,
as amended. Moreover, “perfection of appeal” has no sensible meaning
apart from the meaning given to those words in procedural law. Thus, the
law-making agency could only have intended to refer to the meaning of
those words in the context of procedural law.

Llamado also contends that there should be a “liberal interpretation” of the

penal statutes. The Probation Law, however, is not a penal statute.
Moreover, courts have no authority to invoke “liberal interpretation” when
there is no room for doubt or interpretation. In this case, there is no strict or
liberal interpretation. The Court is simply reading Section 4 as it is in fact
written.

2. Llamado argues that since Section 4 vested in the RTC the authority to
grant the application, the CA had no jurisdiction to grant it and must
remand the records to the lower court. However, the RTC lost jurisdiction
over the case when Llamado perfected his appeal. The CA was not in a
position to remand the records to the RTC. In any case, the argument is
mooted by the conclusion that we have reached, that is, that petitioner's
right to apply for probation was lost when he perfected his appeal from the
judgment of conviction.

V. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No.

04678 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO
ORDERED.

G.R. NO: 84850 PONENTE: Feliciano, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: BP 22 in relation with Probation Law DIGEST MAKER: Rainman edited by Julia