PD 968 Probation Law of 1976
PD 968 or the Probation Law of 1976 has been amended by Republic Act No.10707.
Bar Exam Question (2005)
Probation Law; Proper Period
Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed Php 200,000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of Php 50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not change her residence without the court's prior approval.
1. What is the proper period of probation?
Suggested Answer:
The period shall not be less than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment.
Under Act No. 1732, subsidiary imprisonment for violations of special laws shall not exceed 6 months at the rate of one day of imprisonment for every Php 2.50. Hence the proper period of probation should not be less than (6 months nor more than 12 months. Since Php 50,000.00 fine is more than the maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6 months at Php 2.50 a day.
2. Supposing before the order of discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the order of probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain.
Suggested Answer;
Yes. The court may revoke her probation. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer. Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated. (Bala vs. Martinez, G.R. No.67301, January 29, 1990, citing
Sec.16 of P.D. No.968)
Bar Exam Question (1994)
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence and
sentenced to pay a fine of Php 15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed
a motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for probation. On
May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed
a "Motion for Probation" praying that the execution of his sentence be suspended, and that
a probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his
probation.
The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No.1990,
which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at
the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not
entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time
the application is filed in court.(Bernardo vs. Judge, et al. GR No.L86561, Nov., 10,1992;
Edwin de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, et al. SP-19655, April 18,1990; citing Llamado vs. CA,
et al, GR No.84859, June 28, 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et al, GR 86561, Nov.10, 1992).
Bar Exam (2001)
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (2001)
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one-year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed.
May A still apply for probation? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as amended by PD 1990) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Sec.4, PD 968).
Bar Exam Question (1997)
Probation Law; Maximum Term vs. Total Term
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the probation law of 1976, as amended.
Could he possibly qualify for probation?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
Bar Exam Question (2002)
Probation Law; Order denying probation; Not appealable
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been fould guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos (Php50.00).
A. Is he eligible for probation? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum prison term of imprisonment of more than six years (sec.9a).
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10) days arresto mayor and a fine of Php50.00.
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof?
Suggested Answer:
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation is not appealable.
Bar Exam Question (2004)
Probation Law; Period Covered
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days only.
Is PX entitle to probation? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years. (Sec.9, P.D. No.968)
Bar Exam Question (2005)
Probation Law; Proper Period
Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed Php 200,000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of Php 50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not change her residence without the court's prior approval.
1. What is the proper period of probation?
Suggested Answer:
The period shall not be less than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment.
Under Act No. 1732, subsidiary imprisonment for violations of special laws shall not exceed 6 months at the rate of one day of imprisonment for every Php 2.50. Hence the proper period of probation should not be less than (6 months nor more than 12 months. Since Php 50,000.00 fine is more than the maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6 months at Php 2.50 a day.
2. Supposing before the order of discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the order of probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain.
Suggested Answer;
Yes. The court may revoke her probation. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer. Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated. (Bala vs. Martinez, G.R. No.67301, January 29, 1990, citing
Sec.16 of P.D. No.968)
Bar Exam Question (1994)
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence and
sentenced to pay a fine of Php 15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed
a motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for probation. On
May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed
a "Motion for Probation" praying that the execution of his sentence be suspended, and that
a probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his
probation.
The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No.1990,
which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at
the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not
entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time
the application is filed in court.(Bernardo vs. Judge, et al. GR No.L86561, Nov., 10,1992;
Edwin de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, et al. SP-19655, April 18,1990; citing Llamado vs. CA,
et al, GR No.84859, June 28, 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et al, GR 86561, Nov.10, 1992).
Bar Exam (2001)
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (2001)
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one-year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed.
May A still apply for probation? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as amended by PD 1990) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Sec.4, PD 968).
Bar Exam Question (1997)
Probation Law; Maximum Term vs. Total Term
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the probation law of 1976, as amended.
Could he possibly qualify for probation?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
Bar Exam Question (2002)
Probation Law; Order denying probation; Not appealable
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been fould guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos (Php50.00).
A. Is he eligible for probation? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum prison term of imprisonment of more than six years (sec.9a).
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10) days arresto mayor and a fine of Php50.00.
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof?
Suggested Answer:
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation is not appealable.
Bar Exam Question (2004)
Probation Law; Period Covered
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days only.
Is PX entitle to probation? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years. (Sec.9, P.D. No.968)
Bar Exam Question (1995)
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (1995)
In a case for violation of Sec.8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of Php 6,000.00 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent applied for probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application.
1. If you were the Judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss fully.
2. Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of 4 years and 4 months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation. How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not entitled to probation as Sec.9 of the Probation Law, PD No.968, as amended specifically mentions that those who "are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years" are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
2. The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation. (Sec.4, PD No.968 as amended by PD 1990: Bernardo vs. Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs. judge Callejo, CA case).
Bar Exam Question (2003)
Right; Barred by Appeal
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced his sentenced to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment.
Could Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.