DANIEL FAJARDO, Petitioner vs.

CA, HON. FLORENTINO PEDRONIO, Respondent

G.R. NO. 128508 | February 01, 1999

Justice Pardo

Topic: Application of Penalties; Probation Law (Article 48)

FACTS:

On May 26, 1988, the RTC Ilo-ilo City convicted petitioner of violation of BP 22 and
sentenced him with 8 months imprisonment. He appealed to the CA. Later on, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

August 1990, the SC denied his petition for review on certiorari.

In 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. The trial court
denied motion for probation.

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/S:

Whether or not petitioner could qualify to apply for probation under PD No. 968.

RULING:

NO. PD 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, PD 1990 became effective after fifteen (15) days from July
1, 1986 and in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code, or on July 16, 1986." It is
not ex post facto in its application.

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.

The Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari.

PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:

Probation; Statutes; Presidential Decree No. 1990; At the time Presidential Decree
No. 1990 was issued on October 5, 1985, the President was vested with legislative
Case Digest
powers concurrently with the Batasan Pambansa.—At issue in this case is whether
petitioner could 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.” Petitioner maintains the view
that Presidential Decree No. 1990, issued on October 5, 1985, is null and void on the
ground that at that time President Ferdinand E. Marcos could no longer exercise
legislative powers as the Batasan Pambansa was functioning and exercising sole
legislative powers. The contention is without merit. At that time, President Marcos
was vested with legislative powers concurrently with the Batasan Pambansa.

Case Digest