Leopoldo Facinal and Sancha Facinal vs.

Honorable Judge Agapito Cruz

G.R. No. 50618
September 2, 1992
Nocon,J.

Facts:
Leopoldo and Sancha Facinal are co-owners of a parcel of land consisting of a fishpond,
situated in Capiz. A portion of the property was leased to Clodualdo Jamora and Lucina Orbion
for a lease term of ten years. Upon the lapse of the lease term, the Facinals demanded the
return of the leased property but the lessees refused to vacate the property. The Facinals
instituted an action for unlawful detainer against the lessees. The Municipal Court decided in
favor of the Facinals and ordered the lessees (the Dasals, because it seems that Jamora had
subleased the property) to vacate the property and deliver the same to the Facinals.

The Facinals regained possession of the property only to be deprived of the same again when
the Jamoras and the Dasals reentered and refused to vacate the said property. The Facinals
brought an action for indirect contempt of court. The CFI ruled in favor of the Facinals. The
Dasals reentered the property twice, and in one case, they, together with armed men and PC
soldiers forcibly drove the Facinals out of the property. The CA affirmed the decision of the CFI
finding the Dasals guilty of indirect contempt. The case was remanded to the CFI where the
Dasals filed a petition for probation. The Court held that the grant of probation will be on the
condition that the possession of the property will be returned to the Facinals. However, on the
failure of the Dasals to comply with the said condition, the CFI denied the petition for probation.
However on Motion for Reconsideration by the Dasals, the CFI granted probation on the ground
that the decision of the CA affirming the CFI decision on the indirect contempt did not mention
that the Facinals were again deprived of the possession of the property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted
probation in favor of the Dasals?

HELD:
YES.
Although private respondents would ordinarily be entitled to probation after their conviction in a
contempt proceedings since they are not expressly disqualified under the probation law,
considering however that their conviction was the result of their continued defiance of the court’s
order, private respondents have not shown that repentance nor a predisposition to rehabilitation
or reformation which the probation law sought to achieve. They have defied the Court’s order
not only once or twice but five times, showing their contempt and disrespect for court orders and
processes.
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 968 provides:
“SEC. 2. Purpose—This Decree shall be interpreted so as to:
1. “(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment;
2. “(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less
probable if he were to serve a prison sentence;
and
3. “(c) prevent the commission of offenses.”
Clearly, therefore, the purpose of probation is reformative in nature and not preventive and is to
be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of
the accused.