Lourdes A. Sable Vs People of The Philippines G.R No. 17796, April 7, 2009
Lourdes A. Sable Vs People of The Philippines G.R No. 17796, April 7, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner, together with Concepcion Abangan (Concepcion), Ildefonsa Anoba (Ildefonsa) and
Valentine Abellanosa (Valentine), is accused in Criminal Case No. CBU-35455 of Falsification of Public
Documents under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner and co-accused Ildefonsa were arraigned on 20 July 1994 while co-accused Concepcion was
never arrested. During the initial trial, Atty. Gines Abellana, counsel for all the accused, manifested
that co-accused Valentine was already dead and requested that his name be... dropped from the
information.
Petitioner, together with her co-accused Ildefonsa, allegedly falsified an Extrajudicial Declaration of
Heirs with Waiver of Rights and Partition Agreement, as the signatures contained therein were not the
signatures of the true owners of the land.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R.
CEB-CR No. 81981, raising the sole issue of whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse
of discretion in denying the application for probation.
ISSUES: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR PROBATION
• The filing of the application after the time of appeal has lapsed is injurious to the recourse of the
applicant.
• The application was instituted; petitioner already filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC on 17 June
2003.
• The petitioner is unable to make up her mind as to what recourse she will pursue.
RULLING OF COURT: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds accused Ildefonsa Anoba not
guilty. However, the court finds Lourdes Abellanosa Sable guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged and hereby sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY to SIX (6) YEARS.
WHEREFORE, accused's motion for reconsideration of the Order dated July 22, 2003, motion to recall warrant
of arrest and motion to allow accused to avail of the benefits of the Probation Law, all are hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is hereby DISMISSED.
The Decision dated 14 December 2006 and Resolution dated 21 February 2007 of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED. No cost