MODULE 1-3

INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY BASED CORRECTION PROGRAM THE PRESENT PHILIPPINE

CORRECTIONAL SET-UP

WHAT IS CORRECTION?

Correction is the branch of the administration of CJS charged with the responsibility for the custody,
supervision and rehabilitation of convicted offenders. It is also define as the STUDY OF JAIL OR
PRISON MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION as well as the rehabilitation and reformation of
criminals.Further, it is define as a GENERIC TERM that includes all government agencies, facilities,
programs, procedures, personnel, and techniques concerned with the investigation, intake, custody,
confinement, supervision, or treatment of alleged offenders.

DUAL PURPOSE OF CORRECTIONS

a. To punish and
b. To rehabilitate the offender.

THE CORRECTIONS AS A COMPONENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Correction is the fourth pillar of the PCJS, and identified as the weakest pillar. As a field of
criminal justice administration, it utilizes the body of knowledge and practices of the government and
the society in general involving the process of handling individuals who have been convicted of
offenses for purposes of crime prevention and control. Among the five pillars of the criminal justice
system, corrections is the least heard, known or understood society seems to have some reluctance to
look at it although its role in the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders cannot be overemphasized.
Furthermore, jail administration and control in our country is distributed to at least, four agencies: The
BUREAU OF CONNECTIONS (BUCOR), under the DOJ; which has supervision over the national
penitentiary and its penal farms; The BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY (BJMP), under
the DILG; which has the exclusive control over all city, municipal and district Jails nationwide; The
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS, under DILG; which supervise and control their respective provincial and
sub-provincial Jails; and the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD), which
takes care of, among others, youthful offenders entered in detention centers for juveniles, aside from
these, Other agencies under this pillar are the: (Community Based Correction) The Parole and
Probation Administration (PPA) under the Department of Justice (DOJ); and The Board of Pardons and
Parole also under the Department of Justice.

NOTA BENE: There are also LOCK-UP JAILS under the Philippine National Police (PNP); this
fragmented administration of jails often creates confusion since many are not aware of this set-up.

Generally, corrections, as a component of the system are responsible for:The MAINTENANCE of

institution such as prisons, jails, halfway houses, and others. The PROTECTION of law-abiding
members of society by keeping convicted offenders from preying on society.The REFORMATION and
rehabilitation of offenders in preparation for their eventual reintegration to the mainstream of society
and helping them lead a normal life after release. The DETERRENCE of crimes, experience in prison and
the fear of isolation and denial of liberty will influence inmates and potential offenders to lead a life not
in conflict or afoul with the law.

DECONGESTION OF JAILS

There are several laws, decrees and circulars which we implement to decongest our jails. But before
we discuss these, allow me to show you how congested our jails are as far as the national capital
region is concerned.

Jail congestion is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it confined in the Philippines alone. Jail congestion is
WORLDWIDE. Some industrialized countries like the United States, experience it, let me cite a few
examples: Rikkers Island in New York is actually an island prison facility. It is overcrowded. To cushion
the effect of congestion, two floating dormitories were constructed to confine offenders therein; in
1995 or four years ago. Director General Keith Hamburger of the Queensland services commission of
Australia reported that congestion is also a problem in his country.

In January of 1994, in Manila, Ronald W. Nikkel, president of prison fellowship international who had
toured some of the jails in the National Capital Region (NCR) and the New Biliid Prisons of the Bureau
of corrections in Municipal City observed and commented that in the 41 countries of the world he had
traveled, most have a problem on congestion. He added that this problem is PREVALENT IN THIRD
WORLD COUNTRIES.

In our country, jail congestion, particularly in big cities and municipalities, has been a PERENNIAL
PROBLEM ever since. This problem, to borrow a parallelism, is a sleeping giant. Unfortunately, for jail
administrators and personnel, the giant has taken up and is stretching its enormous arms and legs.
OPLAN DECONGESTION must be put in place to lay this giant back to sleep. OPLAN DECONGESTION
was formalized through the execution of a memorandum of agreement on February 12, 1993. Among
the public attorney’s office, the parole and probation administration, the Board of Pardons and Parole
which are all under the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology which
is under the Department of the Interior and local government. The avowed PURPOSE of said
agreement (MOA) was jail decongestion through collective and cooperative efforts. Realizing that all
helps available must be harnessed to effectively combat overcrowding or congestion in jails, the said
memorandum of agreement was EXPANDED on August 17, 1993 with the inclusion of the National
Prosecution service or (NAPROS) as the fifth party thereto. True to its form, the MOA spreads up its
intent through seminars. These offered opportunities to officials and personnel of the tasked agencies
to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of the agreement, as well as to offer avenue to discuss
various aspects of how jails are to be decongested.

LAW AND DECREES USUALLY AVAILED OF TO DECONGEST JAILS

Presidential Decree No. 603, known as the child and young welfare code, suspends sentence of minor
offenders whose ages range from nine (9) years to under eighteen (18) years and place them in
rehabilitation centers under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
before they are released to the custody of their parents or to any responsible person.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 85, authorizes the release of a detainee who has undergone preventive
imprisonment equivalent to the maximum imposable sentence for the offense he is charged with’

Article 96 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that in meritorious cases, the commutation of the
prisoner’s sentence through presidential action shall be upon the recommendation of the court which
imposed the same; and ARTICLE 97, which provides that a prisoner shall be entitled to a deduction
from his prison term for good conduct; and

DOJ Memorandum Circular no. 6 which directs all wardens or anyone in-charge of local jails to effect
the immediate transfer of national prisoners to the Bureau of corrections.

Republic Act No. 9165- Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002 (July 4, 2002) -1st time minor
offender (probation) for use 2 possession only./deport

Republic Act No. 9344 – Juvenile & Justice welfare Act of 2006 (May)

Republic Act No. 6036, known as the release on recognizance law, provides for the release of offenders
charged with an offense whose penalty is not more than six (6) months and/or a fine of Two Thousand
pesos (2,000) or both, to the custody of a responsible person in the community, instead of a bail bond;

Republic Act No. 6127, fully deducts the period of the offenders’ preventive detention from the
sentence imposed by the courts;

Republic Act No. 4103, as amended, creating the Board of Pardons and Parole tasked to look into the
physical, mental and moral record of prisoners to determine who shall be eligible for parole or
conditional pardon.

Presidential Decree No. 968 July 24, 1976 is the Philippine Probation Law of 1976. Probation is, of
course, a very important legal instrument that contributes to the decongestion of Philippine jails.

APPROACHES OF PHILIPPINE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

The Philippine Correctional System has two approaches, and these are, the Community based
and institution-based systems.

The Institution-Based Approach-The rehabilitation of offenders in jail or prison

The institution-based approaches has three levels and are manned by three different government
agencies responsible for the supervision and control of the numerous institutional facilities nationwide
which provide safekeeping and rehabilitation of inmates, namely: The national prison’s and penal farms
under the Department of justice; The provincial and sub-provincial jails under the provincial
government; and The City, Municipal and District Jails under the Department of Interior and Local
Government. The Bureau of corrections, headed by a non-uniformed director, under the department of
Justice, supervises and controls the national prisons and penal farms.

Non-Institutional Correction or Community-Based Approach- It refers to correctional activities that may

take place within the community or the method of correcting sentenced offenders without having to go
to prison. Not all convicted offenders have to serve their sentence behind bars. Some of them are
allowed to stay in the community, subject to the conditions imposed by the court. They are either
granted probation, parole, conditional pardon or recognizance. The parole and probation Administration
under the Department of Justice is the government agency that supervises the activities of the
probationer, parolee and pardonee and monitors his compliance with conditions imposed.

What is a Community correction?

It is a sanction in which offenders serve some or all their sentence in the community. It is sometimes
referred to as non-institutional corrections. The subfield of corrections in which offenders are
supervised and provided services outside jail or prison.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL AND NON-INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTION
Institutional
That aspect of the correctional enterprise that involves the incarceration and rehabilitation of adults
and juveniles convicted of offenses against the law, and the confinement of persons suspected of a
crime awaiting trial and adjudication.

Non-Institutional
That aspect of the correctional enterprise that includes pardon, probation, and parole activities,
correctional administration not directly connectable to institutions, and miscellaneous (activity) not
directly related to institutional care.

COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTION PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

The Community-Based Treatment Programs are those programs that are intended to treat criminal
offenders within the free community as alternatives to confinement. It includes all correctional
activities directly addressed to the offender and aimed at helping him to become a law-abiding citizen.
Community-based correction programs began in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The programs offer an
alternative to incarceration within the prison system. Many criminologists believed a significant number
of offenders did not need incarceration in high security prison cells. Some inmates, who might
otherwise have been ready to turn away from a life of crime, instead became like the hardened
criminals they associated with in prison.
In response, states, counties, and cities established local correctional facilities and programs that
became known as community-based corrections. These facilities, located in neighborhoods, allowed
offenders normal family relationships and friendships as well as rehabilitation services such as
counseling, instruction in basic living skills, how to apply for jobs, and work training and placement.

ADVANTAGES OF COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTION

Family members need not be victims also for the imprisonment of a member because the convict can
still continue to support his family.
Rehabilitation will be more effective as the convict will not be exposed to hardened criminals in prisons
who will only influence him to a life of crime.
Rehabilitation can be monitored by the community thus corrections can be made and be more
effective.
It is less costly on the part of the government. Cost of incarcerations will be eliminated which is
extremely beneficial on the part of the government.

THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Community sentence seeks to repair the harm the offender has caused the victim or the Community,
provide for public safety and rehabilitate and promote effective reintegration.

A community correction has traditionally emphasized REHABILITATION as its goal. The staff of
community correctional programs has two potentially competing roles that reflect different goals:
Seeing that offenders comply with the orders of community sentences.
Helping offenders identify and address their problems and needs.

BASIC PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT

PROGRAMS
The following are the basic principles underlying the philosophy of community-based treatment
programs:

Humanitarian Aspect - Imprisonment is not always advisable. Placing a person to custodial coercion
is to place him in physical jeopardy, thus drastically narrowing his access to sources of personal
satisfaction and reducing his self-esteem.

Restorative Aspect - There are measures expected to be achieved by the offender, such as an
establishment of a position in the community in which he does not violate the laws. These measures
may be directed at changing and controlling the offender. The failure of the offender to achieve these
can result to recidivism.

Managerial Aspect - Managerial skills are special importance because of the sharp contrast between
the per capital cost of custody and any kind of community program. It is easier to manage those
undergoing community based treatment programs than that of custodial control.
SUBJECT COVERAGE

Probation - One of the most common forms of community correction is probation. Probation can be
thought of as a type of post-trial diversion from incarceration. A term coined by John Augustus, from
the Latin verb “probare”- to prove, to test.

It is a disposition under which a defendant after conviction of an offense, the penalty of which does not
exceed 6 years of imprisonment, is released subject to the conditions imposed by the releasing court
and under the supervision of a probation officer.
Furthermore, it is define as a sentence in which the offender, rather than being incarcerated, is
retained in the community under the supervision of a probation agency and required to abide by
certain rules and conditions to avoid incarceration.

Diversion – For juvenile offender or CICL

Restitution - In recent years it has become increasingly common for jurisdictions to include restitution
orders as part of probation.
Money paid or services provided to victims, their survivors, or to the community by a convicted
offender to make up for the injury inflicted.

Halfway houses - Community-based residential facilities that are less secure and restrictive than
prison or jail but provide a more controlled environment than other community correctional programs.

Goal of Halfway House: The goal of halfway houses is to provide offenders with a temporary period
of highly structured and supportive living so that they will be better prepared to function independently
in the community upon discharge.

What is home Confinement? It is a program that requires offenders to remain in their homes except for
approved periods of absence; commonly used in combination with electronic monitoring. Home
confinement is also known as home incarceration, home detention, and house arrest.

OTHER ASPECTS OF CORRECTIONS

Parole - It is the process of suspending the sentence of a convict after having serve the minimum of
his sentence without granting him pardon, and the prescribing term upon which the sentence shall be
suspended.

Executive Clemency
It shall refer to Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon with or without Parole conditions and
Commutation of Sentence as may be granted by the President of the Philippines upon the
recommendation of the Board of Pardon and Parole.

Pardon It is a form of executive clemency granted by the President of the Philippines as a privilege to a
convict as a discretionary act of grace. It is an act of grace is extended to prisoners as a matter of
right, vested to the Chief Executive (The President) as a matter of power. Neither the legislative nor
the judiciary branch of the government has the power to set conditions or establish procedures for the
exercise of this Presidential prerogative. The following are the two types of pardon:

Absolute Pardon-It refers to the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is
granted without any condition whatsoever and restores to the individual his civil rights and remits the
penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted.
Purpose:
To right a wrong
To normalize a tumultuous political situation.

Absolute Pardon is also granted by a President to an imprisoned president the incumbent has deposed.
Absolute Pardon is granted in order to restore full political and civil rights to convicted persons who
have already served their sentenced and have reached the prescribed period for the grant of Absolute
Pardon.

Conditional Pardon-It refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain limits or conditions;
from the punishment that the law inflicts for the offense he has committed resulting in the partial
extinction of his criminal liability.
It is also granted by the President of the Philippines to release an inmate who has been reformed but is
not eligible to be released on parole.

Amnesty - A general pardon extended to a group of persons, such a political offenders purposely to
bring about the return of dissidents to their home and to restore peace and order in the community.

Commutation of Sentence - An act of the president changing/ reducing a heavier sentence to a

lighter one or a longer term into a shorter term. It may alter death sentence to life sentence or life
sentence to a term of years. It does not forgive the offender but merely to reduce the penalty
pronounce by the court.

Reprieve - A temporary stay of the execution of sentence especially the execution of the death
sentence. Generally, Reprieve is extended to prisoners sentenced to death.

The date of execution of sentenced is set back several days to enable the Chief to study the petition of
the condemned man for commutation of sentenced or pardon.

CHAPTER II

THE NATURE OF PROBATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION

Most correctional authorities believed that probation is one of the most effective and economical tools
which society now has available for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of certain adult and juvenile
offenders against the law. Probation is a procedure wherein a sentence of offender is temporarily
suspended and he is permitted to remain in the community, subject to the control of the court and
under the supervision and guidance of a probation officer. It is a privilege granted by the court to a
person convicted of a crime or criminal offense to remain with the community instead of actually going
to prison. Presidential Decree No. 968 otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976 recognizes such
trend. However, the Decree separates adult probation from juvenile probation for it expressly excludes
those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 603, known as the Child
and Youth Welfare Code, and similar laws. Statements of the principles, goals and objectives of the
Probation Law are found in its Preamble. The Preamble indicates six essential goals, to wit:

a) An enlightened and humane correctional system;

b) The reformation of offenders;
c) The reduction of the incidence of recidivism;
d) To extend to offenders individualized and community-based treatment programs instead of
in1prisonment;
e) It is limited only to offenders who are likely to respond to probation favorably; and
f) It is economical or less costly than confinement to prisons and other institutions with rehabilitation
programs.
g) To provide a less costly alternative to the imprisonment of first-time offenders, then President

Ferdinand E. Marcos issued on July 24, 1976 Presidential Decree No. 968 known as the Probation Law
of 1976. Under PD 968, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced an accused and
upon application of said accused, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the accused on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. First-time
offenders were given a second chance to maintain their place in society through a process of
reformation, which is better achieved when he is not mixed with hardened criminals within prison
walls.

PROBATION DEFINE
The word probation is from the Latin word “probatio” which means testing. the word probation is also
said to be originated from the Latin verb “probare” which means to prove.
In criminal law it is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by a court instead of serving time
in prison.
In the case of Frad v. Kelly, "Probation is a system of tutelage under the supervision and control of the
court which has jurisdiction over the convicted defendant, has the record of his conviction and
sentence, the records and reports as to his compliance with the conditions of his probation, and the aid
of the local probation officer, under whose supervision the defendant is placed." It consists of the
conditional suspension of punishment while the offender is placed under personal supervision and is
given individual guidance or treatment.
The Philippine Probation Law of 1976, as enacted by Presidential Decree No. 968, defines probation as,
"a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer." This decree will take effect on
January 2, 1978.

TERMS TO PONDER
As used in Section 3 of PD 968 and Section 4 of Parole and probation administration omnibus rules on
probation methods and procedure. The following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be
construed thus:

Amicus Curiae – Means friend of the court

Absconding Petitioner- a convicted accused whose application for probation has been given due
course by the court but fails to report to the parole and probation office or cannot be located within a
reasonable period of time.
Absconding Probationer- an accused whose probation was granted but failed to report for
supervision within the period ordered by the court or a probationer who fails to continue reporting for
supervision and/or whose whereabouts are unknown for a reasonable period of time.
Defense Counsel/Counsel- lawyer of the petitioner
Petition- application for probation.
Petitioner - a convicted defendant who files an application for probation.
Probationer - means a person placed on probation.
Probation- is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject
to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
Probation Investigation - The process of selection, diagnoses and planning with the client.
Probation Supervision- The continuous process of helping the client to follow through with the plans,
reevaluation and working with the client in the process of planning his life to meet dynamic situation.
Probation Officer - public officer like the Chief Probation and Parole Officer (CPPO), Supervising
Probation and Parole Officer (SPPO), Senior Probation and Parole Officer (SrPPO), Parole and
Probation Officer II (PPOII), or Parole and Probation Officer I (PPOI), who investigates for the Trial
Court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or does both functions and performs other
necessary and related duties and functions as directed.
Probation Office - refers either to the Provincial or City Probation Office directed to conduct
investigation or supervision referrals as the case may be;
Probation Order - order of the trial court granting probation
Prosecutor- lawyer of the victim.
Trial Court - refers to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the Province or City/Municipal Court which has
jurisdiction over the case.
Volunteerism - is a strategy by which the parole and probation administration may be able to
generate maximum citizen participation or community involvement in the overall process of client
rehabilitation.

CONCEPT AND PHILOSOPHY OF PROBATION

CONCEPT OF PROBATION
P. D 968 as amended, otherwise known as the probation law of 1976 defines probation. The court
convicts and sentences the defendant but the execution of the sentence, whether it imposes a fine only
or a term of imprisonment is suspended and the defendant is released on probation. Probation implies
that during the period of time fixed by the court, the defendant is provided with individualized
community based treatment including conditions he is required by the court to fulfill his correction and
rehabilitation which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence, and for this purpose,
he is placed under the actual supervision and visitation of a probation officer.

If the defendant violates any of the conditions of his probation, the court may revoked his probation
and order him to serve the sentence originally imposed. On the other hand, if he fulfills with the terms
and conditions of his probation, he shall be discharge by the court after the period of probation, where
upon the case against him shall be deemed terminated. His final discharged shall operate to restore to
him all civil rights lost or suspended as result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any
fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. However, he shall continue to be
obliged to satisfy liability resulting from the crime committed by him.

The basic legal conceptions of probation in the Decree are twofold: First, it as a conditional suspension
of the execution of sentence - It denotes that the court assumes a primary role because a grant of
probation is judicially dispensed and controlled. Second it is a personal care or treatment and
supervision over the probationer - It indicates the administrative aspect of probation through the
supervision of a probation officer and from the point of view of social workers, a social casework
treatment.

PROBATION IS A COURT FUNCTION

In the Probation Law, the court assumes a dual role. First, when it acts in accordance with the
jurisdiction it acquires over the accused and proceeds to determine his guilt. Assuming an affirmative
finding of the offender's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court would convict and sentence said
offender. Second, when the court determines whether or not to grant probation upon application of the
offender. Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Decree clearly shows this dichotomy.

The Decree defines probation in Section 3 as "a disposition under which the defendant, after conviction
and sentence, is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. It is evident from this provision that an offender will be released on probation only
after conviction and sentence. Furthermore, Section 4 underlines the necessity of filing an application
with the trial court before the suspension of the execution of the court's judgment. The petition for
probation may be filed by a petitioner directly with the trial court which exercises jurisdiction over his
case. If the court finds that the petition is in due form and that the petitioner is not disqualified from
the grant of probation it shall refer the same to the Provincial or City Probation Officer within its
jurisdiction as the case may be. The court shall order the Provincial or City Probation Office to conduct
a post-sentence investigation of the petitioner. Only upon the filing of an application for probation after
conviction and sentence and a determination that the offender does not fall under any of the
disqualifications set forth in the Decree may the court suspend the execution of sentence.

The Post-Sentence Investigation is an indispensable requisite to a grant of probation. The Probation

Law provides: "No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation
officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as
well as that of the defendant will be served thereby."
The scope of the investigation must be consistent with the purposes of probation. In general, it is a
fact finding inquiry into all information relative to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and
physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources.
Upon the termination of the Post-Sentence Investigation, the probation officer shall submit to the court
the investigation report on a defendant not later than sixty days from receipt of the order of said court
to conduct the investigation. The purpose of the report is to assist the court in determining whether or
not the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served
thereby.

The recommendation contained in the report is merely persuasive and is in no way binding upon the
court. Considering the foregoing and compliance therewith, the court will promulgate a probation
order. Probation is a privilege and, as such, its grant rests solely upon the discretion of the court. The
grant of probation results in the release of the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions imposed
by the court, and to the supervision of the Probation Office.33 As to the conditions to be imposed by
the court, they are enumerated in Section 10 of the Presidential Decree No. 968.

The jurisdiction and control of the court which arises from an imposed sentence, remains with the court
even after a grant of probation. This is evident in Sections 32 and 40 of the Rules On Probation
Methods and Procedures. Section 32 provides: "During the period of probation the court, motu proprio,
or on motion of the probation officer or of the probationer, may revise or modify the conditions or
terms of the probation order." In case of violation of the terms and conditions imposed by the court,
Section 40 provides "if the violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and
modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence
originally imposed and shall commit the probationer." This power of the court underlines the non-
punitive and non-repressive aspect of probation. Such constitutes a sufficient threat to the probationer
to fulfill all terms and conditions imposed by the court.

PROBATION IS A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

Once the court has granted probation to an offender and has duly imposed the terms and conditions of
the probation, the probation officer has the bounden duty to see to it that the probationer observes all
terms and conditions imposed by the court. Probation supervision is then a primarily an administrative
process.

The primary purposes of probation supervision are:

To carry out the conditions set forth in the probation order;
To ascertain whether the probationer is following said conditions; and
To bring about the rehabilitation of the probationer and his reintegration into the community.
To carry out these purposes the Probation Law upon its approval carried with it the establishment of a
Probation Administration an agency under the Department of Justice, which shall exercise general
supervision over all probationers. The Administration shall have regional offices organized in
accordance with the field service area pattern established under the Integrated Reorganization Plan.
There shall be at least one probation officer in each province and city who shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Administrator and in accordance with civil service law
and rules. At this juncture, it is to be emphasized that in spite of the fact that the Probation
Administration is an executive agency, control of the courts over the probationer is not lost. The basis
for such is the first paragraph of Section 13 of the Decree which provides that "the probationer and his
probation program shall be under the control of the court who placed him on probation subject to
actual supervision and visitation by a probation officer."

PHILOSOPHY OF PROBATION
The Probation adheres to the following philosophy:
There is no single cause for delinquent behavior. Human beings are extremely complicated. It is not
possible to trace complex pattern of Human behavior to any single cause; Delinquent and criminal acts
are symptoms. The offender against our law is exhibiting a symptom of social or psychological
disturbance, just as a headache is a symptom of a physical disturbance. This means that the juvenile
delinquent or adult offender is in need of treatment. The job of Probation Administration is to find out
what the problems are beneath the symptom and to recommend appropriate treatment plans; That the
individual has the ability to change and modify his anti-social behavior with the right kind of help; The
central goal of probation Administration is to enhance the safety of the community by reducing the
incidence of Criminal acts by person previously convicted. The goal is to achieve through counseling ,
guidance, assistance, surveillance and restraint of the offender to enable their reintegration into
society as law abiding and productive members;The basic idea underlying a sentence to probation is
very simple. Sentencing is in large part concerned with avoiding future crimes by helping the
defendant learn to live productively in the community which he has offended; This is of course not to
say that probation should be used in all cases, or it will always produce better results. There are many
goals of sentencing some of which in given case may require the imposition of a sentence to
imprisonment even in the face of a conclusion that the probation is more likely to assure that the
public that the particular defendant will not offend again. By the same token however, it can be said
that probation is a good bit more than the “matter of grace” or “leniency” which characterizes the
philosophy of the general public and of many Judges and legislators on the subjects. Probation is an
affirmative correction too, a tool which is used not because is maximum benefits to the defendant, but
society which is sought to be served by the sentencing criminals; An adequate correctional system will
place great reliance on appropriately funded and manned probation services. Within such context
probation services. Within such context probation can lead to significant improvement in the preventive
effects of the criminal law, at much less of a financial burden than the more typical prison sentence;
Imprisonment as a sole cure for prevalence of Crime is no Longer recognized. Prisons are in
themselves often productive of crime and Destructive of the keepers as well as kept. It is generally
concealed that probation a matter of privilege to be granted refused at discretion of the State. The
applicant has already been convicted and sentenced by the court and it is only the mercy of that he
may be given probation; No violation of probation conditions should result in automatic revocation; No
physical would undertake to prescribe treatment for sick man unless he has repot of his ailment and
condition (diagnosis), a judge should not pass judgment on a man without post-sentence investigation
report.

ELEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBATION

ELEMENTS OF PROBATION

FOUR (4) ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PROBATION

A post sentence investigation report which will serve as the informational for the court’s decision to
grant or deny probation.
The conditional suspension of execution of sentence by the court.
Condition of probation imposed by the court to protect public safety and to faster the rehabilitation and
reformation of the probationer.
Supervision, guidance and assistance of the offender by a probation officer.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBATION SYSTEM UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968
The following are the essential elements of the probation system under Presidential Decree No. 968:
Probation is a single or one-time" affair.
Probation system is highly selective.
Persons under probation retain their civil rights, like the right to vote, or practice one's profession, or
exercise parental or marital authority.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBATION
More enlightened and humane correctional treatment.
It aims to promote the reformation of the offenders.
It reduces the incidence of recidivism.
It extends to offenders individualized and community based treatment programs instead of imprisoning
them.
It is limited to offenders who are likely to respond favorably there to.
It is less costly than the confinement of all offenders in prisons.

OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF PROBATION

OBJECTIVES OF PROBATION
The following are the fundamental objectives of a Probation Agency
Assist the court in matters pertaining to sentencing
Promote community protection by supervising and monitoring the activities of persons on probation
Promote the betterment of offenders by ensuring that they receive appropriate rehabilitation services

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROBATION LAW

The purpose of the Probation Law as stated in Section 2 thereof reiterates the above-mentioned
characteristics and vests in them the mandate of law. It provides that the purpose of the Decree is to:
Promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment;
provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he
were to serve a prison sentence; and
Prevent the commission of offenses.

ADVANTAGES, BENEFITS AND SAVINGS OF PROBATION

ADVANTAGES OF PROBATION
The implementation of the Probation Law will confer benefits and advantages not only to society in
general but more soon the part of the offender and the government. Specifically the following are the
advantage of probation:
Probation prevents crime by offering freedom and aid only to those who are not likely to assault
society again.
It protects the society by placing under close supervision non-dangerous offenders while undergoing
treatment and rehabilitation in the community.
It conform the modern humanistic trends in Penology.
It prevents youthful of first time offenders from turning into hardened criminals.

It is a measure of cutting enormous expends in maintaining jails.

It reduces recidivism and overcrowding of jails and prisons.
It reduces the burden of police forces and institution in feeding and guarding detainees.
It gives the first and light offenders a second chance in life.
It makes the offender productive or taxpayers instead of tax eaters.
It restores to successful probationers his civil rights which was previously lost or suspended as a result
of conviction.
It has been proven effective in developing countries that have adopted it.
It is advocated by the United Nations in its various congresses in crime prevention and treatment of
offenders

BENEFITS OF PROBATION
Probation has the following benefits:
It protects society
from the excessive cost of detention
from the high rate of recidivism of detained offender

It protects the victim

it provides restitution
it preserves justice

It protects the family

it does not deprive the wife and children of husband and father
it maintains the unity of a home

It assists the government

it reduces the population of prisons and jail
it lessens the clogging of courts
it lightens the load of prosecutors

It helps the offender

it maintains his earning power
it provides rehabilitation in the community
it restores his dignity

It justifies the philosophy of men

that life is sacred
that all men deserve a second chance
that and individual can change
that society has the moral obligation to lift the fallen

SAVINGS OF PROBATION
The following are the savings of probation:
Probation is one tenth the cost of detention. As illustrated, the per capita cost of maintaining one
offender in the Philippines is estimated at Php 11,000.00 annually, while it costs only Php 300.00 to
maintain one offender on probation.
This means savings of Php 30,000.00 when 10,000 of 40,000 offenders are on probation annually. It is
expected that at least one third of the prisons and jail population in the country would benefit from
probation.

The average per capita income of a Filipino in 2003 according to the National Statistics and
Coordination Board (NSCB) was Php 30,703.00. It means that when 10,000 probationers are making a
living they will produce Php 307,030,000.00 in goods and service annually. A part of this goes to the
government in forms of taxes. Indeed, detention makes tax eaters while probation makes TAX
PAYERS.
The cost of constructing and preparing prisons and jails is enormous which would run to at least
Php10,000,000 annually in order to accommodate 40,000 offenders. The probation system saves the
government a total of Php 4.678 Billion in terms of prisoners maintenance in jails and prisons all over
the country. Philippine Probation System adheres to the concept of Restorative Justice. Thus, a total of
Php 137.923 Million has been paid to clients’ victims and/or their heirs. The biggest savings of
probation aside from money are, however, in the forms of human resources, dignity, time and
opportunity for development, which are most needed by our society.

PROBLEM AREAS OF THE PROBATION LAW

Presidential Decree No. 968 will cover civilians tried and convicted by military tribunals. Section 1
provides: "it shall apply to all offenders except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 603 and similar laws." Section 9 on disqualified offenders does not include
those convicted by military tribunals.

What are the "similar laws" referred to in Section 1? Two can readily be mentioned-The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 and the Articles of War.
The cut-off point at six years imprisonment for extending the benefits of probation refers to the
sentence actually imposed, not that prescribed by law for the offense committed.

The probation law does not disqualify one who has been convicted of an offense penalized by
DESTIERRO, such as that of killing or inflicting serious physical injuries under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code or concubinage insofar as the concubine is
concerned in Article 334, of the same. Unlike Section 9(a), Section 9(c) has reference to the penalty
imposed by law.

Under Section 9(d), one who has been on probation only under the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1924,
Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, or the Child and Youth Welfare Code will not be disqualified.

Under disqualification (e), those who will serve sentence after the substantive provisions of the Decree
shall become operative will be permitted to do so, according to one view. The reason given is that
otherwise it would have been unnecessary for the law to specify the time at which the offender
concerned should be serving his sentence. Another view, however, points to the principle of separation
of powers.

Probation, it is argued, as laid out by the Decree is primarily a judicial function, while the service or
execution of sentence is an executive one. When the convict is delivered to the hands of the prison
authorities, to subsequently allow the judiciary to reach him by suspending the further service of his
sentence and placing him on probation would constitute an intrusion into the prerogatives of the
executive to whom belongs the exclusive power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons and
remit fines and forfeitures.

Therefore, according to this view, offenders who are already serving sentence, no matter when they
start or may be found to be serving sentence, are NOT qualified for the benefits of the Decree.

It cannot be made at any time after conviction and sentence, but rather extends only up to the actual
commitment of the defendant to prison for the service of his sentence, and not thereafter. The
defendant may apply for probation in case of appeal from a judgment of conviction. He may apply for
probation as long as he has not begun serving his sentence, and obviously this does not happen if the
sentence has not become final and executory, such as during the pendency of an appeal.

The rule of automatic withdrawal of pending appeal applies in case the application for probation is
made when the appellate court has already rendered its decision, there being no indication in the
probation law to the contrary, and the operation of such rule being in accordance with the maxim that
laws should be liberally construed in favor of the accused.

The application for probation may be in any form, whether written or oral. While Section 4 of the
Decree states that the application shall be filed with the court, this does not necessarily mean that it
should be in writing, even if a written form would definitely be more convenient to the court. A liberal
construction of the law beneficial to the accused would not consider the use of the term 'filed' by the
law, as impliedly requiring a written form.

Defendant is not entitled as a matter of right to the assistance of counsel in the investigation. The
probation law does not have a provision guaranteeing the right to counsel in such investigation. The
constitutional guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard
by himself and counsel and that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to counsel would not seem to apply because the investigation by the probation officer is
neither prosecutory nor accusatory in character. It is merely a fact-finding inquiry.

Neither is the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination that no person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself, available in the investigation. The said guarantee does not depend upon
the nature of the proceedings in which it is invoked, of course, and it may be availed of as long as the
questions objected to would incriminate the person who 'is asked to answer the same. But it is an
established doctrine that where the answer to a question, however self-incriminating, may not be used
as evidence of criminal liability of the respondent because there is a law prohibiting its use for that
purpose, then the privilege against self-incrimination may not be validly invoked to justify refusal to
answer the question. Section 17 of the Probation Law provides that the investigation report and the
supervision history of the probationer obtained under this decree shall be privileged, i.e., it may not
legally be used as· evidence of liability.
We raise one question, though. The same Section 17 itself provides that "the investigation report and
the supervision history x x x shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned x x x." If the defendant cannot
invoke the privilege against self-incrimination during the investigation, would not the incriminating
answers given prejudice the court in deciding whether it will grant probation or not?

Pending submission of the investigation report and the resolution of the petition for probation, the
defendant may be allowed on temporary liberty under his bail filed in the criminal case, or on
recognizance.

While the grant or denial of probation is not appealable, certiorari will lie, under the general law on
certiorari. This is not appeal for he does not question the findings of fact of the trial court but only the
reasonableness of the order based thereon and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper, court alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceeding as the law
requires of such tribunal, board or officer. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant
and pertinent thereto.

The grant of probation does not erase, modify of otherwise affect the offender's CIVIL LIABILITY.
Probation is a substitute for imprisonment and other criminal penalties, not a mode of discharging the
civil liability, which is owed not to the State but to the offended party. The sentence, which is
suspended from execution, means only the imposition of the criminal penalties, not the civil liability. If
it were otherwise, the offended party would have to file a separate civil action thereby creating
multiplicity of suits, contrary to public policy. In fact, civil indemnification might be imposed as a
condition for probation under Section 10 (k) of the Probation Law. Indeed, under Article 112 in relation
to Article 113, of the Revised Penal Code, except in case of extinction of his civil liability in accordance
with the provisions of the civil law, the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability
resulting from the crime committed by him, even if he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of
amnesty, pardon, commutation of service, or any other reason.

PROBATION UNDER PD NO. 603 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344

The Presidential Decree (PD) 603 is known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The Decree was
signed by his Excellency President Ferdinand Marcos on December 10, 1974 and took effect on June
10, 1975. It provides for the grant of probation to youthful offender as an alternative to imprisonment.
It is considered as the second probation law of the Philippines which is intended only for minors.
Presidential Decree No. 603 applies to youthful offenders. It suspends the sentence of minor offenders
whose ages range from 9 years old but not more than 21 years old (now 18) the time of the
commission of the offense and places them to rehabilitation center. It states, "if after hearing the
evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find that the youthful offender has committed the
acts charged against him, the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court shall
suspend further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of the Department of
Social Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the government, or duly licensed agencies or
any other responsible person, until he shall have reached 21 years of age (now 18), or for a shorter
period as the court may deem proper.

NOTA BENE: The age of minority is lowered from 21 to 18 years old.

RELATED PROVISIONS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344

Sec. 5 of Republic act No. 9344: Rights of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Every child in conflict
with the law shall have the following rights, including but not limited to:
xxx
(m) the right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, if qualified under the Probation Law; xxx

Sec. 42 of Republic act No. 9344: Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after
it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time,
place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest
of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.

Sec. 43 of Republic act No. 9344: Confidentiality of Records and Proceedings. - All records and
proceedings involving children in conflict with the law from initial contact until final disposition of the
case shall be considered privileged and confidential. The public shall be excluded during the
proceedings and the records shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone by any of the parties
or the participants in the proceedings for any purpose whatsoever, EXCEPT to determine if the child in
conflict with the law may have his/her sentence suspended or if he/she may be granted probation
under the Probation Law, or to enforce the civil liability imposed in the criminal action.
The component authorities shall undertake all measures to protect this confidentiality of proceedings,
including non-disclosure of records to the media, maintaining a separate police blotter for cases
involving children in conflict with the law and adopting a system of coding to conceal material
information which will lead to the child's identity. Records of a child in conflict with the law shall not be
used in subsequent proceedings for cases involving the same offender as an adult, except when
beneficial for the offender and upon his/her written consent.
A person who has been in conflict with the law as a child shall not be held under any provision of law,
to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his/her failure to
acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him/her for
any purpose.

Sec. 67 of Republic act No. 9344: Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years Pending
Diversion and Court Proceedings. - If a child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years pending diversion
and court proceedings, the appropriate diversion authority in consultation with the local social welfare
and development officer or the Family Court in consultation with the Social Services and Counseling
Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall determine the appropriate
disposition. In case the appropriate court executes the judgment of conviction, and unless the child in
conflict the law has already availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar
laws, the child may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the Probation Law.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROBATION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 603 AND UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968.

Presidential Decree No. 603 Presidential Decree No. 968

Under Presidential Decree No. 603 the youthful
offender is neither convicted nor sentenced
although the court finding him guilty determines
the imposable penalty and orders his commitment
as a matter of course to any of the trustees for his
correction and rehabilitation, even without his
asking for it and without any prior investigation.
Under Presidential Decree No. 968, the offender is
convicted and sentenced. Section 3 defines
probation as a disposition under which a
defendant, after conviction and sentence, is
released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
The probationer is not committed to any
institution but is set free under the constructive
custody of the court which heard his application
for probation. Section 4 of the Probation Decree
requires that defendant should apply for
probation.
 MODULE 4 :

The concept of probation, from the Latin, probatio, "testing," has historical roots in the practice of
judicial reprieve. 

In English common law, prior to the advent of democratic rule, the courts could temporarily
suspend the execution of a sentence to allow a criminal defendant to appeal to the monarch for a
pardon. Probation first developed in the United States when John Augustus, a Boston cobbler,
persuaded a judge in the Boston police court in 1841 to give him custody of a convicted offender, a
"drunkard," for a brief period and then helped the man to appear rehabilitated by the time of
sentencing. 

Even earlier, the practice of suspending a sentence was used as early as 1830 in Boston,
Massachusetts, and became widespread in U.S. courts, although there was no statutory provision for
such a practice.  At first, judges, most notably Peter Oxenbridge Thatcher of Boston, used "release
on recognizance" or bail and simply refrained from taking any further action. In 1878 the mayor of
Boston hired a former police officer, the ironically named "Captain Savage," to become what many
recognize as the first official probation officer. By the mid-19th century, however, many Federal Courts
were using a judicial reprieve to suspend sentence, and this posed a legal question. In 1916, the
United States Supreme Court, in the Killets Decision, held that a Federal Judge (Killets) was without
power to suspend a sentence indefinitely. This decision led to the passing of the National Probation Act
of 1925, thereby, allowing courts to suspend the imposition of incarceration and place an offender on
probation. Probation developed from the efforts of a philanthropist, John Augustus, who looked for
ways to rehabilitate the behavior of criminals. Massachusetts developed the first state-wide probation
system in 1880, and by 1920, 21 other states had followed suit. With the passage of the National
Probation Act on March 5, 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, the U.S. Federal Probation
Service was established. On the state level, pursuant to the Crime Control and Consent Act of 1936, a
group of states entered into an agreement wherein they would supervise probationers and parolees
who reside in each other's jurisdictions on each other's behalf. Known as the Interstate Compact for
the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, this agreement was originally signed by 25 states in
1937. By 1951, all the states in the United States of America had a working probation system and
ratified the Interstate Compact Agreement. In 1959, the new states of Alaska and Hawaii, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa
ratified the act as well.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION IN ENGLAND

Early in the 19th century the English magistrates initiated experiments to save young and
inexperienced offenders from stigma of prison. They made use of the latitude allowed then under the
common law to bind over defendants, who should be brought back for sentence if the conditions of
release were violated.
The need for supervision and assistance to those so released was met by assigning the young offender
to the care and guardianship of his parents or his employer with an occasional check on his progress
by the police.

WHO IS MATHEW DAVENPORT HILL?

Mathew Davenport Hill is considered the father of probation in England. He left an interesting account
of his experiments in the Birmingham court. He was in the forefront of reforming juvenile offenders. He
finds persons who act as guardians of the juvenile offender. Then at an unexpected period, the
confidential officer visits the guardian, makes inquiries and keeps notes of information received.
He conducted his experiment in the Birmingham Court. Beginning in the early years of 1481, he acted
for and in behalf of juvenile offenders, when he believes:

 The individual is not fully corrupt

 There was reasonable hope of reformation
 When there could be found persons to act
 As guardian they are kind enough to take charge of the young convict. In the belief that there is
better hope for reformation under such guardians than in prison.
 At unexpected period, confidential officers visits the guardians, make inquiries and register facts.
He was thus informed and records were kept.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION IN UNITED STATES

The first state to enact a real probation law in United States is Massachusetts. The first practical
demonstration of probation, first use of the term as court service, and the enactment of the first
probation law occurred in Massachusetts.

Volunteer services evolved in Maryland. The prisoners Aid Association of Maryland, organized in 1869,
employed agents to visit the prison and assist released prisoners and gradually they began to
investigate cases and assist offenders before the Baltimore courts. A 1894 law provided that any court
in the state might release on probation for “good conduct” a person convicted of any offense not
capital, if no previous conviction was proved against him, upon his entering into a recognizance, with
or without sureties, and during such period as the court may direct to appear and received judgment
when called upon, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

Another state adopting a partial measure was Missouri with its “parole of convicted person’s law of
1897.”

The second state to enact a real probation law. The Vermont like Missouri and unlike Massachusetts
provided for probation only after suspension of the execution of sentence. The bills in both states were
supported by the state correctional agencies. Many features of the Massachusetts law were
incorporated, with several innovations since followed elsewhere. Vermont was the first to adopt a
county plan.

The third state to enact a real probation law is Rhode Island. A complete state-administered probation
system appeared first in Rhode Island. The Act of 1899 empowered the board of state charities and
corrections to appoint a state probation officer and additional probation officers, “one of whom at least
shall be a women,” to serve all courts in the state. The Act followed Massachusetts in permitting the
use of probation before the imposition of sentence and even without conviction but the limitation of
probation to less serious offenses was an unfortunate departure from the laws of Massachusetts and
Vermont.

Success of probation became known in other English speaking countries. Illinois and Minnesota in 1899
Plan for children only. New Jersey and New York enacted probation law in 1900.

Finally, on March 4, 1925 the UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROBATION ACT was enacted.

WHO IS JOHN AUGUSTUS?

John Augustus is the father of probation in the USA. He is a Boston shoemaker, first to develop a
sustained service to promote temperance and to reclaim drunkards. Although later he begun to take
men and woman charged with other crimes, then eventually children. As indicated by the story of the
first case, his method was to provide bail for a temporary suspension or postponement of sentence,
during which he sought to counsel and assist such persons find homes, securing employment and
adjusting family difficulties. At the end of the probation period, he brought back the offender to court,
and if no further complaint had been lodged against the offender, the judged imposed a nominal fine
with costs. If the man was too poor, Mr. Augustus advanced the amount, usually as loan.
John Augustus originated in rudimentary form, many of the techniques of probation officers and other
social workers today, including casework, foster home placement, and protective work for women and
children.

This was brought about by the changing attitudes of the people towards law breaker and the removal
of the inherited attitudes from the PURITANS.

John Augustus was born in 1785 at Woburn Massachusetts and moved to Lexington Green and became
a Cordwainer or Bootmaker. He prospered and acquired large track of land apart conveyed to
Lexington Academy to erect a school. Which he became a trustee. In 1827 he moved to Boston and
set up a shop at Franklin Avenue near the Courthouse. He began to visit courthouse because of his
membership with the Washington Total Abstinence Society, formed in Boston in 1841 to promote
temperance and to reclaim drunkards. During the first year, he took only men charge with
drunkenness. Then men and women charge with other offense and then children/ number of cases
increases each year

METHODS OF AUGUSTUS
Provide bail for temporary suspension of punishment of sentence
Then he sought counsel and assists his charges in finding homes, securing employment and adjusting
family difficulties.
At the end of probation he brought offender back to court-if no further charges are found- judge
imposes a nominal fine with cost if man is poor, Augustus advance fine as a loan.

AUGUSTUS EXPERIMENT
August 1841- Rugged drunk man
3 weeks -The drunkard was brought back to court where the judge cannot recognize him.
Imposes a fine of $ 3.76.
Augustus died on June 21, 1859. And out of 2000 person whom he extended his help, only 10 were
ungrateful. And out of 1100 cases, only one case was forfeited.
Massachusetts became the 1st country to enact a probation law on April 21, 1878

WHO IS GOVERNOR ALEXANDER H. RICE?

He provided appointment and prescribed duties for paid probation officers.

WHO IS PRESIDENT CALVIN COOLIDGE? The former governor of Massachusetts.

HISTORY OF PROBATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

The Adult Probation Law of 1935

The Philippine Legislature enacted the first probation of the Philippines. The first legislation was Act No.
4221 enacted by the Philippine legislature on August 07, 1935 and which created a Probation Offices
under the Department of Justice led by a Chief Probation Officer appointed by the American Governor
General with the advice and consent of the United States. This Law provided probation for the first
time offenders, eighteen years of age and over, convicted of a certain crime.

However, the law stayed in the statue Books for only Two years. The act subsequently declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Nov. 16, 1937 in People vs. Vera 37 O.G. 164.

NOTA BENE:
The ill-fated Act was only procedural framework that was antagonistic with the constitution/charter.
Section 11 of Act no 4221, the fatal provision of the Act, provided that "This Act shall apply only in
those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation
officer . . .. "

The declaration of unconstitutionality of the Probation Act of 1935 created a gap in the criminal justice
system in the Philippines. The criminal justice system is the machinery which society uses in the
prevention and control of crimes. Its components are the police, the courts, the penal institutions, the
probation and the parole systems the components are highly dependent upon one another. The failure
of one can destroy the effectiveness of all the others within the system.

In order to heighten the awareness of interdependency and cooperation among the components of the
criminal justice system, as well as to improve judicial process and to reduce the level of criminality, the
National Police Commission created an Inter-Disciplinary Committee in 1974 to prepare a National
Crime Prevention Program. On July 24, 1976, a "National Strategy to Reduce Crimes" was finalized and
presented to the President of the Philippines. The Strategy proposed a two-pronged attack to reduce
crime in the country, namely: (1) to give emphasis on the prevention and control of high-fear and
economic crimes by implementing a number of priorities of actions; and (2) to improve the quality of
the criminal justice system by facilitating teamwork among its interdependent components.

The following priorities of action were recommended:

1. Improvement of the quality of the criminal justice system among its interdependent components;
2. Improvement of the management skills of law enforcement;
3. Reducing the delays in the criminal justice processes;
4. Making corrections more attuned to its role of rehabilitating law offenders; and
5. Increasing the community participation in crime prevention.
6. There were a number of projects recommended under each of these priorities of action, among
which was the establishment of an adult PROBATION SYSTEM. It was a priority action under (4).

The rationale for recommending priority consideration to the establishment of a probation system is
clearly apparent. The penal system in the country is characterized by substandard treatment of
prisoners. To try to train lawbreakers to obey the law in a substandard system is self-defeating.
The deterrent potentiality of the prisons is grossly exaggerated. No one has ever proved that the threat
of severe punishment actually deters crime. Prisons heighten the offenders' weaknesses and erode
their capacity for responsibility and sociability.
The maintenance of penal institutions is costly on the part of the government. In view of these
considerations, an alternative to institutionalization for certain types of offenders was proposed. Such
proposal was subsequently translated into a law on July 24, 1976, which is now known as the
"Probation Law of 1976" or Presidential Decree No. 968.

WHO IS TEODULO C. NATIVIDAD?

He is the Father of Probation in the Philippines. He headed the committee (IDCCP) primarily tasked
with the drafting of the adult probation law.

THE ADULT PROBATION LAW OF 1976

It took a long time before another attempt was made with introduction then by Congressman Teodulo
C. Natividad in collaboration with former Congressman Ramon D. Bagatsing, House Bill No. 393. The
measure was passed in the Lower House and was pending in the senate when Martial Law was
proclaimed in 1972.

The Presidential decree No. 968, established a probation system less costly alternative to the
imprisonment of the offender who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based treatment
program is the second legislation that enforces a probation system in the country.

On Nov. 13, 1974, the Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention (IDCCP) was created to
formulate a national crime prevention program for the courtly.

NOTA BENE: The committee places emphasis on “Pro-action (crime prevention) rather than Reaction
(action after occurrence of the crime).

INTER-DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE ON CRIME PREVENTION (IDCCP)

The delegation’s official report served as the turning point for the Inter-Disciplinary Committee on
Crime Prevention of the commission to formulate for a national crime prevention program. As
mandated under Section 4(k) of republic Act no. 4864, otherwise known as the police Act of 1966”, the
National Police Commission, on November 13, 1974, created the IDCCP. The IDCCP then under the
charge of Commissioner Teodulo C. Natividad, was asked by the Secretary and Chairman of
NAPOLCOM, Juan Ponce Enrile to draft the adult probation decree.
This Committee, the Inter-Disciplinary Committee, is composed of authorities and representative from
the five pillars of the criminal justice system. After a laborious period of eighteen technical hearings
involving sixty source persons, came out with the draft decree for presentation at a seminar on the
Probation System sponsored by the National Police Commission and the U.P. Law Center on April 24,
1976 subsequently attended by 369 participants.

The Proposal was reviewed by a mixture of Jurist, Penologist, Policemen, Educators subsequently civic
leaders, social and behavioral scientist, media men blue and white collar workers and housewives. Two
(2) foreign experts participated namely Dr. Torsten Erickson, former United Nations Inter-Regional
Adviser on Crime Prevention Justice and Dr. A. Lamonth Smith. Director for Research Program Planning
and Elicit comments on the adoption of adult probation system in the country.

A survey was made to elicit comments on the adoption of the adult probation system in the country.
Favorable resulted showed 87.1% in favor of the adoption, 7.1% apprehensive and 5.8% non-
committal.

Thereafter, the draft was sent to the Secretary of the Department of the National Defense, Secretary of
the Department of the Justice and to the Supreme Court for review and endorsement of the President.

The final forum of the proposed institutionalization of adult probation in the country was the First
National Conference on Crime Control, which was held at Camp Aguinaldo from July 22 to July 24,
1976. It was on this historic last day of the Conference that the Presidential Decree No. 968 and
thereby Transported the criminal justice system of the country to the twentieth century. In the
process, the president also appointed as the first Probation Administration, NAPOLCOM Chairman,
Teodolo C. Natividad in a concurrent capacity.

THE MULTI- SECTORAL BODY

As advocated by the United Nations, the five-penal multi-sectoral body is composed of experts from
the various sectors and disciplines comprising the five pillars of criminal justice system, namely: Police,
Prosecution, Court, Correction and Community Participation. The panel on community participation has
sub-panels on education, welfare, religion, Barangay, health and economics.

Under the leadership of Commissioner Teodulo C. Natividad, the IDCCP, after barely two months of
work evolved a proposed system of probation for adults based on evaluation of projects on crime
prevention and treatment of offenders in the courtly, notably the Bacolod City experiment on social
defense.

This was later incorporated as part of PD 968 which was signed into law by Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos
on July 24, 1976. Note: Jan. 3, 1978 – affectivity of the substantive provisions of PD 968.

CASE ANALYSIS: PEOPLE VS. VERA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VERA

(G.R. NO. L-45685, NOVEMBER 16 1937)

FACTS:

Cu-Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges by the trial court of Manila. He filed a motion for
reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were denied. He then elevated to the Supreme
Court of United States for review, which was also denied. The SC denied the petition subsequently filed
by Cu-Unjieng for a motion for new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for
execution of the judgment. CFI of Manila referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation
Office which recommended denial of the same. Later, 7th branch of CFI Manila set the petition for
hearing. The Fiscal filed an opposition to the granting of probation to Cu Unjieng, alleging, among
other things, that Act No. 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of
the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article III of the Constitution
guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. The private prosecution also filed a supplementary
opposition, elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality on Act No. 4221, as an undue delegation of
legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution).

ISSUE:
Whether or not:
the Act No. 4221 encroaches upon the pardoning power of executive.
the Act No. 4221 constitute on undue delegation of legislative power.
the Act No. 4221 denies the equal protection of the law.

RULING:
No. There is no encroaches upon the pardoning power of executive. act does not encroached in any
upon the powers of the executive as they have understood and practiced from the earliest time;

The Court held that the Probation Act did not, by the force of any of its provinces, fix and impose upon
the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionary power. What was
granted was a "roving commission" which enabled the provincial boards to exercise arbitrary
discretion. By Section 11 of the Act, the legislature did seemingly on its own authority extend the
benefits of the Act to the provinces but in reality left the entire matter for the various provincial boards
to determine for themselves whether the Probation Law should apply to their provinces or not at all.
The applicability and application of the Act was entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If
a provincial board did not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all it had to do was to decline to
appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer without even stating the reason
therefore. The plain language of Section 11 was not susceptible of any other interpretation. This was a
virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.

Yes. There is undue delegation of legislative power.

SC conclude that section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of
legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason, unconstitutional and void
The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: "This Act shall apply only
in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation
officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be
appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office."

The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves, whether the Probation
Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The applicability and application of the Probation Act are
entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If the provincial board does not wish to have the
Act applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the
salary of a probation officer.

The clear policy of the law, as may be gleaned from a careful examination of the whole context, is to
make the application of the system dependent entirely upon the affirmative action of the different
provincial boards through appropriation of the salaries for probation officers at rates not lower than
those provided for provincial fiscals. Without such action on the part of the various boards, no
probation officers would be appointed by the Secretary of Justice to act in the provinces.
The Philippines is divided or subdivided into provinces and it needs no argument to show that if not one
of the provinces — and this is the actual situation now — appropriate the necessary fund for the salary
of a probation officer, probation under Act No. 4221 would be illusory. There can be no probation
without a probation officer. Neither can there be a probation officer without the probation system.

Yes, it denies the equal protection of the law

The act was surrender of legislative power to the provincial board for its application was left to their
determination in providing for the salary appropriation , although there are no provision that fix and
impose any standards to guide in the exercise of provincial board’s discretionary power;

That the unwarranted delegation of Power under section11 of Act No. 4221 created a situation for
discrimination and inequality to exits as one province may appropriate then necessary funds for the
salary of a probation officer while another may refuse or fail to do so;

Hence it contravened the equal protection of the law clause for those persons who may enjoy the
benefits of Probation.
that it bluntly called a “roving commission” that enable provincial boards to exercise arbitrary
discretion so that if a provincial board did not wish to have the Act applied in its provincial, all that it
had to do was to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of probation officer, which
construed as a virtual surrender of Legislative power to the provincial boards.

It was considered class legislation. Under this law probation existed only in cities and municipalities,
which were given appropriation for, said purpose by legislature.

BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P.D. 968 AND THE PROBATION ACT OF 193

BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P.D. 968 AND THE PROBATION ACT OF 1935

Presidential Decree  968 Act no. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976)
As to Applicability It expressly and explicitly provides that "There
of the probation shall be at least one probation officer in each
law province and city who shall be appointed by
the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation
of the Administrator and in accordance with
civil service law and rules."  (Section 23)
The Probation Law applies to all provinces and
cities, uniformly and without discrimination.
The salary of the probation officer in each
province or city is provided for by law, no
longer subject to the discretion of the
respective provincial boards.
(Probation Law of 1935)
It expressly and explicitly
provides that this Act shall apply
only in those provinces in which
the respective provincial boards
have provided for the salary of a
probation officer . . . " (Section
11)
The Probation Law applies only
to provinces and cities in which
their respective provincial boards
have provided for the salary of a
probation officer.
The salary of the probation
 The law expressly provides that "The Provincial
or City Probation Officer shall receive an
annual salary of at least eighteen thousand
four hundred pesos.”
As to the condition The conditions of Probation make it
of the probation MANDATORY for the Court to issue a probation
order order containing specific conditions for the
probationer to fulfill. (Section 10)
The reparation or restitution by the
probationer to the aggrieved parties for actual
damages or losses caused by his offense is
DELETED.
As to the period of It provides that "in all other cases, the
probation probation period shall not exceed 6 years.
(Section 14)
The new law, therefore, provides for a definite
and shorter probation period.
As to the The Law provides that an order granting or
appealability of denying probation shall not be appealable.
the order granting (Section 4)
or denying
probation
As to the It contains a GENERAL enumeration. It
offenses not provides that the benefits of this Decree
covered shall not be extended to those:
sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years;
convicted of any offense against the
security of the State;
who have previously been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month
and one day and/or fine of not less than
two hundred pesos;
who have been once on probation under
the provisions of this Decree;
who are already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of this
Decree became applicable. . .. " (Section
9)
N.B. Thus, besides a general enumeration
officer is to the discretion of the
respective provincial boards.
The Probation Law divests the
provincial boards of the power to
determine whether or not salary
of a probation officer in their
respective provinces would be
appropriated.
The imposition of the said
conditions on the probationer
was merely DISCRETIONARY on
the part of the Court issuing the
probation order. (Section 3)
There is reparation or restitution
by the probationer to the
aggrieved parties for actual
damages or losses caused by his
offense.
It provides that the period of
probation of a probationer found
guilty of "any other offense" did
not exceed twice the maximum
time of imprisonment to which
he might be sentenced. (Section
7)
Nowhere in the old Probation
Law can there be found a
provision to this effect.
It gave an enumeration of
the offenses not covered by
the Act. This enumeration
SPECIFIED the crimes not
covered. These were:
Homicide
Treason
Misprision of treason
Sedition
Espionage
Conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason
Piracy
Brigandage
 of the offense not covered, the said
Section further broadened the scope of
the inapplicability of the Law. Additional Arson
exemption from coverage can be found in
the offenses enumerated under Section 9
(a, c, d and e) abovementioned. Robbery in band

Robbery with violence on

persons when it was found
that they displayed a deadly
weapon and

Corruption of minors."
(Section 8)

As to The modification or revision of the It provided that "The Court

modification or conditions of probation, Presidential MAY, at any time, revise,
revision of the Decree No. 968, Section 12 provides in modify or enlarge the
conditions of part, that "During the period of probation, conditions or period of
probation the court may, UPON APPLICATION of probation."
either the probationer or the probation
officer, revise or modify the conditions or
period of probation. . .. "
N.B. Contrasting the two Sections, it is
evident that under the new law,
application of either the probationer or
the probation officer is needed in order
that the Court may exercise its discretion
to revise or modify the conditions or
period of probation whereas the old law
granted to the Court the exclusive
discretionary power of revision and
modification without need of prior
application by the probationer or the
probation officer concerned.
It is clear therefore, that under the new
law, the Court relies heavily upon the
probation officer and places great faith in
him.
As to name of
probation office Office - Probation Administration Office - Probation Office
and its head

Probation Administrator - the Executive Chief Probation Officer - the

Officer of the Probation Administration Head of the Probation Office

FORERUNNERS OF PROBATION
The following are the forerunner of probation: 
Benefits of the Clergy- earliest for softening of the brutal severity of punishment. This was a
compromise between the church and the king that, if any member of the clergy was brought to trial
before the king’s court, such clergy could be claimed from the jurisdiction by the bishop or chaplain
representing him on the ground that the prisoner was subject to the authority of the Ecclesiastical
Court only. There was greater leniency in sentencing and particularly escape from death penalty.
Acquittal or guilt was established by a Jury of Twelve Clerks. 

Judicial Reprieve- withdrawal of sentence for an internal of time whereby the execution of the sentence
is suspended either before or after judgment such as when there is a favorable circumstance in the
criminal’s character in order to give him opportunity to apply to the King for either an absolute an or
conditional pardon. Early English courts began to grants reprieves to prisoners under sentence of death
on condition that they accept deportation to English settlements in America.
Recognizance or “Binding over for good behavior” – this is considered as the direct ancestor of
probation. This involves an obligation or promise sworn to under court order by a person not yet      
convicted of crime he would keep the peace and be of good behavior.

Transportation- this was developed from an ancient practice of banishment and flourished for more
than two hundred years as a principal method of disposing offenders. It served mainly as cheap source
of supplying labor to the colonies of England.

THE PROBATION LAW AND ITS AMENDMENT

AMENDMENTS PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

968
Presidential Section 1
Decree No. xxx
1257 The prosecuting officer concerned shall be notified by
the court of the filling of the application for probation
and he may submit his comment on such application
within ten days from receipt of the notification.
xxx NONE
Nota Bene: The prosecutor participates in the
determination of the application for probation. It is
therefore mandatory the prosecuting officer
concerned shall be notified by the court of the filling
of the application for probation and submits comment
within 10 days from receipt.
Section 2 Section 7
xxx xxx
 The court shall resolve the application for probation The court shall resolve the
not later than fifteen days after receipts of said petition for probation not later
report." than five days after receipt of
xxx said report.
xxx
N.B. PD no. 257 extended the period of resolving the
application for probation by the court from five (5)
days to fifteen (15) days.
Section 3
xxx
In the hearing, which shall be summary in nature, the
probationer shall have the right to be informed of the
violation charged and to adduce evidence in his favor.
The court shall not be bound by the technical rules of NONE
evidence but may be inform itself of all the facts
which are material and relevant to ascertain the
veracity of the charge. The State shall be represented
by a prosecuting officer in any contested hearing.
xxx
N.B.
The defendant has the right to be informed of the
violation charged and to adduce evidence in his favor.
Sec. 4 sec. 33
xxx xxx
That the application of its substantive provisions That, the application of its
concerning the grant of probation shall only take substantive provisions
effect on January 3, 1978." concerning the grant of
xxx probation shall only take effect
twelve months.
xxx

Batas The probation system shall not be extended to a The probation system shall not
Pambansa convicted offenders sentenced to serve a maximum be extended to a convicted
Blg. 76 term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years and offenders sentenced to serve a
 one (1) day. maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six
N.B. The probational period is extended to six (6) (6) years.
years and one (1) day and below N.B. The probational period is
six (6) years and below.
xxx
Any person sentenced to maximum penalty of six
years and one day on January 3, 1978 and thereafter
may be placed on probation upon his application NONE
therefore with the court of origin. However, such
person serving sentence shall remain in jail pending
the approval of his application.
XXX

Presidential The decree restore the provision of section 9 of PD

Decree No. 968 that probation shall not be extended to a
1990 convicted offenders sentenced to serve a maximum
term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years.  It
that senses the decree impliedly amended the
provision of BP 76.
Section 1 amending Section 4 of PD no. 968.
Xxx
Provided; That NO APPLICATION FOR PROBATION
SHALL BE ENTERTAINED OR GRANted if the
defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction.
Xxx
NB: Appeal and probation is a mutually exclusive
remedy; meaning once a defendant filed his appeal it NONE
is a deemed waiver of the filing of probation.
The period of perfecting an appeal is also the period
of perfecting an application/filing for probation. In
general, the period of perfecting an appeal is fifteen
(15) days from the promulgation of sentence.
N.B. 1990 – The period of punishment which is
probationable is lowered again from 6 years and 1
day to 6 years or less

Executive It renamed the Probation Administration created

Order No. under PD 968 into Parole and probation
292 Administration.
It also extended the powers and function of the PPA.
It includes the following:

Administer the parole and probation system;

Exercise general supervision over all parolees and

probationers;

Promote the correction and rehabilitation of

offenders; and

Such other functions as may hereafter be provided by

law.

xxx
(2)The Administration shall have a Technical Service
under the Office of the Administrator which shall
serve as the service arm of the Board of Pardons and
 Parole in the supervision of parolees and pardonees.
The Board and the Administration shall jointly
determine the staff complement of the Technical
Service.
xxx

MODULE 5 :

Introduction:
THE RULES AND LIMITATIONS IN THE GRANT OF PROBATION

NATURE OF GRANTING PROBATION

GRANT OF PROBATION

Section 4 of PD 968 - 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 filed 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. (As amended by PD
1990).

CRITERIA FOR PLACING AN OFFENDER ON PROBATION (SECTION 8 OF PD NO. 968)

QUESTION
Will probation be automatically granted to one whose sentence is six (6) years or less? No, the
offender must fit the criteria under Section 8 of PD 968.

Under Section 8 of PD No. 968, in determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the
court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and
physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall
be denied if the court finds that:
The offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution; or
There is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or
Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

However, under Sec. 70 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
the first-time minor offender who upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its discretion,
placed the accused under probation, even if the sentence provided under Sec. 11 of the Act is higher
than that provided under Probation Law.

SECTION 70 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor
Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment. – Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its
discretion, place the accused under probation, even if the sentence provided under this Act is higher
than that provided under existing law on probation, or impose community service in lieu of
imprisonment. In case of probation, the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be undertaken
by the Board through the DOH in coordination with the Board of Pardons and Parole and the Probation
Administration. Upon compliance with the conditions of the probation, the Board shall submit a written
report to the court recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the probationer,
whereupon the court shall issue such an order.

TOLENTINO VS. JUDGE ALCONCEL

121 SCRA 92; G.R. No. L-63400; March 18, 1983

Application for Probation can be denies on the ground that it will depreciate the seriousness of the
offense committed.

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. However after the
prosecution had presented part of its evidence, petitioner desires to change his plea of not guilty to
that of guilty to a lesser offense of possession of Indian Hemp [marijuana], under Section 8 of Article
II of Rep. Act No. 6425.
As no objection was interposed by the fiscal, the court allowed petitioner to withdraw his former plea of
guilty and to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Petitioner was thereupon sentenced to
imprisonment of 6 months and 1day to 2 years and 4 months.
Petitioner applied for probation. Respondent judge forthwith directed the probation officer to conduct a
POST SENTENCE INVESTIGATION. After conducting such investigation, the probation officer,
recommends that petitioner be placed on two-year probation.
But the respondent judge denies petitioner's application on the ground that it will depreciate the
seriousness of the offense committed.
Hence, the instant recourse.

ISSUE: Whether the grant of probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

HELD:
Yes. Section 5 of P.D. 968 provides, to wit:
SEC. 5. Post Sentence Investigation.— No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior
investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the
best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby.
It is evident from the foregoing that the potentiality of the offender to reform is not the sole, much less
the primordial factor, that should be considered in the grant or denial of an application for probation.
Equal regard to the demands of justice and public interest must be observed. Thus, Section 8 of P.D.
968 lays down the criteria for the placing of an offender on probation, as follows:
Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation.—In determining whether an offender may be
placed on probation, the court shall consider all information, relative to the character, antecedents,
environment, mental and physical condition of the offender and available institutional and community
resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
a) ...
b) ...
c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.
"The conclusion of respondent judge that "probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed" is based principally on the admission by the petitioner himself, that he was actually caught
in the act of selling marijuana cigarettes. Petitioner did not deny or dispute the veracity of the fact that
he was caught in flagrante delicto of selling marijuana cigarettes. He merely attempted to justify his
criminal act by explaining in his motion for reconsideration that "he did it only to make some money
for the family during Christmas. Such admission renders a hearing on the application for probation an
unnecessary surplusage and an Idle ceremony.
Proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country has remained a serious threat to the well-being of the
people. It has necessitated an all-out intensified campaign on the part of the law-enforcers against
users as well as pushers thereof. If only to emphasize the gravity of the drug menace, the Batasan
Pambansa has seen fit to increase the penalty for violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act 6425.
Thus, while under Rep. Act 6425, as amended by P.D. 44, possession or use of marijuana was
punishable by imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months and a fine ranging from
P600.00 to P6,000.00-the penalty imposed upon petitioner herein-POSSESSION AND USE thereof is
now punishable by imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and fine ranging from
P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 under B.P. Blg. 179.
The observation of the Solicitor General on this increase of penalty is apropos: The implication is clear.
The penalties were increased to take it out of the range of probationable offenses. Thus, the State has
spoken and considers that this is one case where probation will depreciate the offense committed, and
will not serve the ends of justice and the best interest of the community, particularly, the innocent and
gullible young.
PROBATION IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT A PRIVILEGE
In the above case of TOLENTINO VS. JUDGE ALCONCEL, the Supreme Court held that, probation is a
mere privilege and its grant rests solely upon the discretion of the court. This discretion is to be
exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of the
accused.
Probation cannot be demanded as a matter of right. It is a privilege. Hence, only those persons who
are qualified may apply for probation. Its grant depends upon the discretion of the trial court. No
person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation officer and a
determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of public as well as that of the
defendant will be serve thereby.
The grant of probation results in the release of the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of Probation Officer.
However, under R.A. 9344 or Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, a Child in Conflict with the Law
(CICL) is granted the right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment if qualified under the
Probation Law.

BASIS OF GRANTING PROBATION

In DELA CRUZ VS. CALLEJO; the basis of granting probation is the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Convicted for highway robbery sentence to 11 years, 4 months and 1 day 12 years penalty was
reduced to 1 year, 8 months and 5 months and 1 day. He applied for probation on the basis of the
appellate court. Trial court denied. Supreme Court denial is proper to the provision of the law.

PROBATION IS NOT A SENTENCE

In Baclayon vs. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148 (April 30, 1984) it was held that an order placing defendant on
"PROBATION" IS NOT A "SENTENCE" but is rather in effect a suspension of the imposition of sentence.
It is not a final judgment but is rather an "interlocutory judgment" in the nature of a conditional order
placing the convicted defendant under the supervision of the court for his reformation, to be followed
by a final judgment of discharge, if the conditions of the probation are complied with, or by a final
judgment of sentence if the conditions are violated.
Probation is not a suspension of sentence. A suspension of sentence postpones execution of sentence
for a definite time, while probation suspends sentence during good behavior.

HOW MANY TIMES CAN ONE BE GRANTED PROBATION?

An offender can be granted probation ONLY ONCE IN HIS LIFETIME.

GRANTING OR DENYING PROBATION NOT BE APPEALABLE

Under PD No. 1990, an order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

PROBATION AND APPEAL IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES

Later, the amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 by P.D. No. 1990 imposed a condition upon the
grant of probation, thus: "Provided, that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if
the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction." The application for probation
was no longer allowed if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
The reason for the disallowance of probation where an appeal has been made by the accused is stated
in the preamble of P.D. No. 1990, thus: "WHEREAS, it has been the sad experience that persons who
are convicted of offenses and who may be entitled to probation still appeal the judgment of conviction
even up to the Supreme Court, only to pursue their application for probation when their appeal is
eventually dismissed".
In view of this change, jurisprudence treated appeal and probation as MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
REMEDIES. Thus, where the penalty imposed by the trial court is not probationable, and the appellate
court modifies the penalty by reducing it to within the probationable limit, the same prohibition should
still apply and he is not entitled to avail of probation.
In Sable v. People, G.R. No. 177961, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 619, 625. the Supreme Court stated
that "[Section 4 of] the Probation Law was amended to put a stop to the practice of appealing from
judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable, for the purpose of securing an acquittal
and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid." Thus, probation should be availed of
at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who manifest
spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
The Supreme Court explained that the intention of the new law is to make appeal and probation
mutually exclusive remedies. Jurisprudence at that time stated that the Probation Law requires that an
accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. This
requirement "outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused--to wager on the result of
his appeal--that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at
hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an `escape hatch'
thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction."
However, in the fairly recent case of Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011, the
Supreme Court took another look at the probation law, and allowed the grant of probation to an
accused who has appealed his conviction. In this case, the accused was originally sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court to imprisonment exceeding 6 years and one day, which disqualified from applying
for probation. Upon his appeal of the case to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court lowered the
penalty to less than 6 years and one day. The Supreme Court reasoned that since the trial court
imposed a (wrong) penalty beyond the probationable range, thus depriving the accused of the option
to apply for probation when he appealed, the element of speculation that the law sought to curb was
not present.
In a real sense, the Court's finding on appeal that the accused was guilty, not of a non-probationable
penalty, but only of a penalty which may be subject of probation, is an original conviction that for the
first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would
have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of less than 6 years
and one day. This would have afforded the accused the right to apply for probation.
The Supreme Court said that the question is ultimately one of fairness. It is not fair to deny the
accused the right to apply for probation when the new penalty that the Court imposes on him after he
appealed his original conviction is, unlike the one erroneously imposed by the trial court, subject to
probation.

LOURDES A. SABLE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 17796: April 7, 2009

FACTS: Petitioner convicted of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) in
relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code on November 28, 2000 but acquitted Ildefonsa Anoba
for finding not guilty. However, the court finds that Lourdes Abellanosa Sable was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and hereby sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
4 years, 2 months and one day to 6 years. On August, 25, 2003 petitioner intimated her desire to
apply for probation instead of appealing the judgment of conviction which was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the denial of application for probation is tenable.

HELD: The court held that probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified
offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately
admit his liability and save the state the time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The pertinent
provision of the Probation Law, as amended, reads:
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.(Emphasis supplied.)
It is quite clear from the afore-quoted provision that an application for probation must be made within
the period for perfecting an appeal, and the filing of the application after the time of appeal has lapsed
is injurious to the recourse of the applicant. In the present petition before us, petitioner filed the
application for probation on 25August 2003, almost eight months from the time the assailed judgment
of the RTC became final. Clearly, the application for probation was filed out of time pursuant to Rule
122, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court, which states that an "appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days
from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from."In Palo v. Militante,
this Court held that what the law requires is that the application for probation must be filed within the
period for perfecting an appeal.
The need to file it within such period is intended to encourage offenders, who are willing to be
reformed and rehabilitated, to avail themselves of probation at the first opportunity. Furthermore, the
application for probation must necessarily fail, because before the application was instituted, petitioner
already filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC on 17 June2003. The Probation Law is patently clear
that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction."The law expressly requires that an accused must not have
appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. This outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accused -- to wager on the result of his appeal -- that when his
conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well nigh at hand and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch," thus rendering nugatory the
appellate court’s affirmation of his conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who manifest spontaneity,
contrition and remorse.
This was the reason why the Probation Law was amended, precisely to put a stop to the practice of
appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable, for the purpose of
securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid.

COLINARES VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Arnel Colinares (Arnel) was charged with frustrated homicide for hitting the head of
the private complainant with a piece of stone. He alleged self-defense but the trial court found him
guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from 2 years and 4 months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the
maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to 6 years, Arnel did not qualify for
probation.
Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking self-defense and, alternatively, seeking
conviction for the lesser crime of attempted homicide with the consequent reduction of the penalty
imposed on him. His conviction was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lower [lesser] offense [of attempted homicide]
and a reduced probationable penalty, may he may still apply for probation on remand of the case to
the trial court?

RULING:
[The Supreme Court voted to PARTIALLY GRANT the appeal, MODIFIED the CA decision and found
Arnel GUILTY of ATTEMPTED (not frustrated) HOMICIDE and SENTENCED him to and indeterminate but
PROBATIONABLE penalty of 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum and 2 years and 4 months of
prision correccional as maximum. The Court also voted 8-7 to allow Arnel to APPLY FOR PROBATION
within 15 days from notice that the record of the case has been remanded for execution to trial court.]
YES, Arnel may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial court.
Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed from the
judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of
the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him
should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and
four months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow
him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC.
While it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to such
privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is the right to apply for that privilege. The Court
finds that his maximum jail term should only be 2 years and 4 months. If the Court allows him to
apply for probation because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether or
not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the full circumstances of his case.
If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinion’s hard position, it will apply the probation law on
Arnel based on the trial court’s annulled judgment against him. He will not be entitled to probation
because of the severe penalty that such judgment imposed on him. More, the Supreme Court’s
judgment of conviction for a lesser offense and a lighter penalty will also have to bend over to the trial
court’s judgment—even if this has been found in error. And, worse, Arnel will now also be made to pay
for the trial court’s erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right to apply for probation. Ang
kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw (the horse errs, the carabao gets the whip). Where
is justice there?
Here, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for probation. He
did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, “By taking this
appeal, I choose not to apply for probation.” The stiff penalty that the trial court imposed on him
denied him that choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek probation under this Court’s
greatly diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling in Francisco. 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.
In a real sense, the Court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of
attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable
penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct
offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would
have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE PERALTA,

In view of the provision in Section 4 of the Probation Law that “no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction,”
prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is
unmistakable about it.
However, it has been proposed that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation
if the appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit, as this is equitable. In this
regard, an accused may be allowed to apply for probation even if he has filed a notice of appeal,
provided that his appeal is limited to the following grounds:
When the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the penalty imposed by the lower court, which
when corrected would entitle the accused to apply for probation; and
When the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which the accused was convicted and that
the accused should only be liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime for
which he was originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the probationable period.

In boths instances, the penalty imposed by the trial court for the crime committed by the accused is
more than six years; hence, the sentence disqualifies the accused from applying for probation. Thus,
the accused should be allowed to file an appeal under the aforestated grounds to seek a review of the
crime and/or penalty imposed by the trial court. If, on appeal, the appellate court finds it proper to
modify the crime and/or the penalty imposed, and the penalty finally imposed is within the
probationable period, then the accused should be allowed to apply for probation.
In addition, before an appeal is filed based on the grounds enumerated above, the accused should first
file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court anchored on the above-stated grounds
and manifest his intent to apply for probation if the motion is granted. The motion for reconsideration
will give the trial court an opportunity to review and rectify any errors in its judgment, while the
manifestation of the accused will immediately show that he is agreeable to the judgment of conviction
and does not intend to appeal from it, but he only seeks a review of the crime and/or penalty imposed,
so that in the event that the penalty will be modified within the probationable limit, he will apply for
probation.
It is believed that the recommended grounds for appeal do not contravene Section 4 of the Probation
Law, which expressly prohibits only an appeal from the judgment of conviction. In such instances, the
ultimate reason of the accused for filing the appeal based on the aforestated grounds is to determine
whether he may avail of probation based on the review by the appellate court of the crime and/or
penalty imposed by the trial court. Allowing the aforestated grounds for appeal would give a qualified
convicted offender the opportunity to apply for probation if his ground for appeal is found to be
meritorious by the appellate court, thus, serving the purpose of the Probation Law to promote the
reformation of a penitent offender outside of prison.
On the other hand, probation should not be granted to the accused in the following instances:
When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where the penalty imposed is within the
probationable period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal; and
When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits of his conviction in issue, even if there
is an alternative prayer for the correction of the penalty imposed by the trial court or for a conviction
to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the crime in which he was convicted where the
penalty is within the probationable period.
There is wisdom to the majority opinion, but the problem is that the law expressly prohibits the filing of
an application for probation beyond the period for filing an appeal. When the meaning is clearly
discernible from the language of the statute, there is no room for construction or interpretation. Thus,
the remedy is the amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, and not adaptation through judicial
interpretation.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
It must be stressed that in foreclosing the right to appeal his conviction once the accused files an
application for probation, the State proceeds from the reasonable assumption that the accused’s
submission to rehabilitation and reform is indicative of remorse. And in prohibiting the trial court from
entertaining an application for probation if the accused has perfected his appeal, the State ensures that
the accused takes seriously the privilege or clemency extended to him, that at the very least he
disavows criminal tendencies.
Consequently, this Court’s grant of relief to herein accused whose sentence was reduced by this Court
to within the probationable limit, with a declaration that accused may now apply for probation, would
diminish the seriousness of that privilege because in questioning his conviction accused never admitted
his guilt. It is of no moment that the trial court’s conviction of petitioner for frustrated homicide is now
corrected by this Court to only attempted homicide.
Petitioner’s physical assault on the victim with intent to kill is unlawful or criminal regardless of
whether the stage of commission was frustrated or attempted only. Allowing the petitioner the right
to apply for probation under the reduced penalty glosses over the fact that accused’s availment of
appeal with such expectation amounts to the same thing: speculation and opportunism on the part of
the accused in violation of the rule that appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.

WILLY TAN y CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 148194: April 12, 2002

FACTS: Willy Tan was found guilty of bigamy, and then he applied for probation which was granted by
the trial court but the release was withheld in view of the filing by the prosecution a motion for
modification of penalty. He later filed a notice of appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not he is entitled to an appeal after he has applied for probation.

HELD: In fine, petitioner had taken an appropriate legal step in filing a notice of appeal with the trial
court. Ordinarily, the Court should have the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings. The clear impingement upon petitioner’s basic right against double jeopardy, however,
should here warrant the exercise of the prerogative by this Court to relax the stringent application of
the rules on the matter. When the trial court increased the penalty on petitioner for his crime of
bigamy after it had already pronounced judgment and on which basis he then, in fact, applied for
probation, the previous verdict could only be deemed to have lapsed into finality. Section 7, Rule 120,
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure that states

Sec. 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death
penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in
writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation-implements a substantive provision of the
Probation Law which enunciates that the mere filing of an application for probation forecloses the right
to appeal.
Sec. 4.Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after its hall
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 or 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. Such a waiver amounts to a voluntary
compliance with the decision and writes finis to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the judgment.
There is no principle better settled, or of more universal application, than that no court can reverse or
annul, reconsider or amend, its own final decree or judgment. Any attempt by the court to thereafter
alter, amend or modify the same, except in respect to correct clerical errors, would be unwarranted.

DANIEL G. FAJARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 128508: February 1, 1999

FACTS:
On May 26, 1988, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Iloilo City, convicted petitioner of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of eight (8) months imprisonment
and to pay the costs, in Criminal Case No. 14196. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. By decision
promulgated on February 27, 1990, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Upon the remand of
the record to the lower court, on June 2, 1995, petitioner filed a motion for probation contending that
he was eligible for probation because at the time he committed the offense in 1981, an accused who
had appealed his conviction was still qualified to apply for probation and that the law that barred an
application for probation of an accused who had interposed an appeal was ex post facto in its
application, and, hence, not applicable to him. On January 5, 1996, the trial court denied petitioner's
motion for probation. On July 29, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari to annul the lower court's denial of his application for probation. On November 12, 1996, the
Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is qualify to apply for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 since
he had appealed from his conviction in 1988, after Presidential Decree No. 1990 amending Presidential
Decree No. 968, became effective in 1986, providing that "no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.

HELD:
Presidential Decree No. 1990, enacted on October 5, 1985, "was printed in Volume 81 of the Official
Gazette dated December 30, 1985 but said issue was released for circulation only on July 1, 1986;
hence, P D 1990 became effective after fifteen (15) days from July 1, 1986, in accordance with Article
2 of the Civil Code, or on July 16, 1986."It is not ex post facto in its application. The law applies only
to accused convicted after its effectivity. An ex post facto law is one that punishes an act as a crime
which was innocent at the time of its commission. Presidential Decree No. 1990, like the Probation Law
that it amends, is not penal in character. It may not be considered as an ex post facto law.
At the time of the commission of the offense charged — violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22— in
1981, petitioner could have appealed if convicted and still availed himself of probation. However,
petitioner was convicted on May 26, 1988, and he appealed. At that time, petitioner no longer had the
option to appeal and still apply for probation if unsuccessful in the appeal. Presidential Decree No.
1990 was then in full effect. Hence, he could no longer apply for probation since he had appealed. On
October 13, 1997, the Solicitor General submitted a manifestation positing the view that petitioner's
application for probation may still be considered because when petitioner committed the offense in
1981, he could avail himself of probation since the law as it stood at that time provided that an
accused convicted of a crime may apply for probation even if he had appealed the conviction. We do
not share his view. The case he cited is a Court of Appeals decision, and, hence, not a precedent. What
is more, it is inapplicable because there, the accused's conviction became final on October 14, 1985.
Presidential Decree No. 1990 although enacted on October 5, 1985, was published in the Official
Gazette on December 30, 1985,and,hence, was not yet applicable at the time the accused was finally
convicted. Regrettably, the Solicitor General has cited a Court of Appeals decision that is inapplicable
to this case because the facts were not similar. We find it unnecessary to resolve the other issues that
petitioner has raised questioning the constitutionality and wisdom of Presidential Decree No. 1990,
amending the probation law.

PATERNO DE LOS SANTOS, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 181306: March 21, 2011

FACTS: Paterno de los Santos, Jr. was found guilty of the crime of intentional abortion,and then he
filed an application for probation. It was ruled that he is ineligible to apply for probation, considering
the fact that he has waived his right to avail the benefits of probation law when he appealed the
judgment of conviction by the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is entitled to the benefits of probation, considering that he had appealed his
conviction, contrary to the provision of Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990.

HELD: Probation is a special privilege granted by the State to a penitent qualified offender. It
essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his
liability and save the State the time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The pertinent provision
of the Probation Law, as amended, reads:
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.
It is undisputed that petitioner appealed from the decision of the trial court. This fact alone merits the
denial of petitioner's Application for Probation. Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court
and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed his conviction, petitioner
was clearly precluded from the benefits of probation.
Furthermore, it was clear that when petitioner filed his appeal before the appellate court, what he was
questioning was the merit of the decision convicting him and not the propriety of the penalty imposed
by the trial court for the purpose of correcting a wrong penalty — to reduce it to within probational
range. By perfecting his appeal, petitioner, therefore, ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of
availing of the Probation Law.
The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail
himself of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on
the result of his appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth
well nigh at hand and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape
hatch," thus, rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction. Consequently,
probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated; who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
Considering that the prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive
remedies, and petitioner opted to appeal his conviction, he, therefore, deemed to relinquish his right to
the benefits of probation.

QUALIFIED AND DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS FOR PROBATION

WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO PROBATION?

Any first time convicted offender, 18 years of age and above not otherwise disqualified under PD 968
as amended can apply for probation before serving the sentence which may either be imprisonment of
fine with subsidiary imprisonment, or both imprisonment and fine.
The age of offender qualified for probation is 18 years and above. PD 1179 which amended PD 603
lowered the age of youthful offenders under 18 years old.
AS GENERAL RULE probation applies to all sentenced or convicted offenders - All first-time offenders
convicted of crimes punished by imprisonment of not more than 6 years (maximum of 6 years). Except
the following:
Those entitled to the benefits of PD 603 as amended otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare
Code. Hence, an offender who is under 18 years of age must be dealt with in accordance with the more
liberal and beneficent provisions of PD 603.
Incidentally, Art 192 PD 603 as amended gives the youthful offender a choice as to whether he will be
dealt with as a youthful offender under PD603 or as Adult offender under PD 968 as amended. If he
does not apply under PD603 as amended, he treated as an adult offender. In such a case, two options
are open to him, namely:
To simply serve his sentence
To apply of probation under PD 968 as amended
Those that are found Guilty in violation of R.A 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug Act of
1972 as amended by Republic Act No. 9165. Hence, its beneficiaries, drug dependents, must be
subjected to the confinement, treatment and rehabilitation measures provided therein. Even those who
are below twenty one years of age who are found guilty of possessing or using prohibited or regulated
drugs must be treated under the provisions of R.A 6425.
Those offenders who has not been convicted and sentenced.
Those that are found guilty in violation of BP 881 as amended by BP 882,883 and 884 otherwise known
as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines.
Those who are found guilty in violation of PD 1987 (an act creating the Video gram Regulatory)
Those that are found guilty in violation of RA 6727 otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act.

QUESTION

Are all convicted persons who are not disqualified entitled to probation automatically?

No. Under PD 968; the court will not grant probation if after investigation conducted by the
probation officer, it finds that:

1) The offender can be treated better in an institution or other places for correction;
2) The offender is a risk to the community;
3) Probation will depreciate the gravity of the offense.

ANSELMO DE LEON CUYO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192164: October 12, 2011
FACTS: On August , 25, 2009, Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in San Fernando
City, La Union, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of perjury under Article
183 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day
to one (1) year. He was likewise ordered to pay private complainant Alejo Cuyo the amount of P10,
000 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Petitioner was not present during the promulgation of the judgment and was represented by his
counsel instead. His motion for reconsideration was denied on October 23, 2009. He subsequently filed
a Motion for Probation on November, 5, 2009 but is denied on the ground that it had been filed beyond
the reglementary period of fifteen days as provided in Sec. 4 of P.D. 968.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of probation.

HELD: This court held that the RTC that the Motion for Probation was filed out of time. Sec. 6 of Rule
120 of the Rules of Court provides: Promulgation of judgment - The judgment is promulgated by
reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the Court in which it was rendered.
However, if the conviction is for alight offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may
be promulgated by the clerk of court. In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in
the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel. If the
judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he
shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender
and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his
absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he
shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (Emphasissupplied.)
Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of perjury. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 4
months and 1 day to 1 year, a period which is considered as a correctional penalty. Under Article 9 of
the Revised Penal Code, light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor (one to thirty days of imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding two hundred
pesos (P200), or both are imposable. Thus, perjury is not a light felony or offense contemplated by
Rule 120, Sec. 6. It was therefore mandatory for petitioner to be present at the promulgation of the
judgment. To recall, despite notice, petitioner was absent when the MTCC promulgated its judgment on
25 August 2009. Pursuant to Rule 120, Sec. 6, it is only when the accused is convicted of a light
offense that a promulgation may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. In
case the accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation despite notice, and the failure
to appear was without justifiable cause, the accused shall lose all the remedies available in the Rules
against the judgment.

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS FOR PROBATION (Section 9, PD 968)

Under Section 9 of PD 968, the benefits of probation shall not be extended to:
Those sentenced to serve a MAXIMUM TERM of imprisonment of MORE THAN SIX (6) YEARS;

Note: the six years maximum refers to the sentence actually imposed, and not that prescribed by law
for the offense committed.
Those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or public order;

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason Rebellion or insurrection

conspiracy and proposal to commit Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion

treason

Sedition
misprision of treason

Conspiracy to commit sedition

espionage
 Inciting to sedition
inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals
Acts tending to prevent the meeting of assembly and
similar bodies
violation of neutrality

Disturbance of proceedings
correspondence with hostile country

Direct assault
flight to enemy’s country

Indirect assault
piracy

Coup d’etat
qualified piracy

Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;

PREVIOUS CONVICTION FINE:

 if one month - qualified for probation  less than two hundred pesos -
qualified for probation
 if one month and one day or more - disqualified for  two hundred pesos or more -
probation disqualified for probation

Those who have been ONCE on probation under the provisions of PD No. 968, as amended;
Accordingly, one who has been on probation only under the child and Youth Welfare Code as amended
and the Dangerous Drugs Code of 1972 as amended will not be disqualified. The reason form this is
that the treatment given under those latter laws is of a different kind from that under PD 968 as
amended.
Those who are already serving sentence at the time substantive provisions of the decree became
applicable pursuant to section 33 of PD 968. (As amended by BP Blg. 76, and PD 1990, October 5,
1985)

Technically speaking probation cannot cover the following, non-offenders; offenders not yet convicted
and convicted offenders but with a sentenced exceed 6 years.

ALEJANDRA PABLO vs.HON. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

G.R. No. 12510: August 3, 2000

FACTS: Alejandra Pablo was convicted of a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. She applied for
probation and was later denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the he should be denied probation on the ground of disqualification from
probation under Section 9 of P.D. 968.

HELD: The Court ruled that under Section 9 of the Probation Law, P.D. 968, the following offenders
cannot avail of the benefits of probation:
Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
Those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or the public order;
Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than one month and one day and/or fine of not less than two hundred pesos;
Those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree; and
Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this decree became
applicable pursuant to section 33 hereof.

The National Probation Office denied petitioners application for probation under Section 9 paragraph (c)
P.D. 968 because a prior conviction was entered against the petitioner on June 21, 1995 in Criminal
Case No. 94-0199, penalizing her with a fine of P4,648.00; there by placing her within the ambit of
disqualification from probation under Section 9 paragraph (c) of P.D. 968.It is a basic rule of statutory
construction that if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity,
it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any interpretation. Not only that; in the
matter of interpretation of laws on probation, the Court has pronounced that "the policy of liberality of
probation statutes cannot prevail against the categorical provisions of the law."Section 9 paragraph (c)
is in clear and plain language, to the effect that a person who was previously convicted by final
judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a
fine of not less than two hundred pesos, is disqualified from applying for probation. This provision of
law is definitive and unqualified. There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c) which qualifies "previous
conviction" as referring to a conviction for a crime which is entirely different from that for which the
offender is applying for probation or a crime which arose out of a single act or transaction as petitioner
would have the court to understand. It is well-settled that the probation law is not a penal statute; and
therefore, the principle of liberal interpretation is inapplicable. And when the meaning is clearly
discernible from the language of the statute, there is no room for construction or interpretation.