Bala vs. Martinez

Bala vs.
Martinez
181 SCRA 459, G.R. No. 67301,
January 29, 1990
DOCTRINE:
- No application for probation shall be granted if defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction; Presidential Decree 1990, not to be given retroactive effect.
-Expiration of probation period alone does not automatically terminate probation, a final
order of discharge from the court is required.
-Probation period may be shortened or made longer but not to exceed the period set in the
law.
-An order revoking probation or modifying the terms thereof is unappealable.
-Probation is a mere privilege and rests on the court’s sound discretion.
FACTS:
Herein petitioner, Manuel V. Bala, had been indicted for removing and substituting
the picture of Maria Eloisa Criss Diazen which had been attached to her United States of
America passport, with that of Florencia Notarte, in effect falsifying a genuine public or
official document. On January 3, 1978, he was held guilty as charged.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the lower court's decision.
After the case had been remanded to the court of origin for execution of judgment,
the petitioner applied for and was granted probation by the respondent judge in his order
dated August 11, 1982. The petitioner was then placed under probation for a period of one
(1) year, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein.
On September 23, 1982, the probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising

probation officer for permission to transfer his residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life
Subdivision in Las Piñ as specifically 33 Jingco Street. The probation officer verbally granted
the probationer's request as he found nothing objectionable to it.
By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should have expired on August 10,
1983, one year after the order granting the same was issued. But, the order of final
discharge could not be issued because the respondent probation officer had not yet
submitted his final report on the conduct of his charge.
Respondent People of the Philippines, through Assistant City Fiscal Jose D. Cajucom
of Manila, filed a motion to revoke the probation of the petitioner alleging that the
petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of his probation before Branch XX of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, presided over by the respondent judge.
The petitioner filed his opposition to the motion on the ground that he was no
longer under probation, his probation period having terminated on August 10, 1983, as
previously adverted to. As such, no valid reason existed to revoke the same, he contended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s probation was terminated by the expiration of the

probation period.
RULING:
No, petitioner’s probation was not terminated by the expiration of the probation
period.
The present law on probation, Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1990, which amends
section 4 of P.D. 968, clearly states that "no application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction."
However, in the case at bar, P.D. 1990 is inapplicable. P.D. 1990, which went in force on
January 15, 1985 cannot be given retroactive effect because it would be prejudicial to the
accused.
Probation is revocable before the final discharge of the probationer by the court,
contrary to the petitioner's submission Section 16 of PD 968 8 is clear on this score:
Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of probation and upon consideration
of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final
discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of
his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
Thus, the expiration of the probation period alone does not automatically terminate
probation. Nowhere is the ipso facto termination of probation found in the provisions of
the probation law. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There must first be issued
by the court of an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation of the
probation officer. Only from such issuance can the case of the probationer be deemed
terminated.
The period of probation may either be shortened or made longer, but not to exceed
the period set in the law. This is so because the period of probation, like the period of
incarceration, is deemed the appropriate period for the rehabilitation of the probationer. In
the instant case, a review of the records compels a revocation of the probation without the
need of further proceedings in the trial court which, after all, would only be an exercise in
futility. If we render justice now, why should we allow the petitioner to further delay it.
Probationer Manuel Bala failed to reunite with responsible society. Precisely he was
granted probation in order to give him a chance to return to the main stream, to give him
hope — hope for self-respect and a better life. Unfortunately, he has continued to shun the
straight and narrow path. He thus wrecked his chance. He has not reformed.
By his actuations, probationer-petitioner Manuel V. Bala has ridiculed the probation

program. Instead of utilizing his temporary liberty to rehabilitate and reintegrate himself
as a productive, law abiding, and socially responsible member of society, he continued in
his wayward ways — falsifying public or official documents.
At any time during the probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a
probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once
arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing which
may be informal and summary, of the violation charged. 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. An order
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be
appealable.
The probation having been revoked, it is imperative that the probationer be

arrested so that he can serve the sentence originally imposed. The expiration of the
probation period of one year is of no moment, there being no order of final discharge as yet,
as we stressed earlier. Neither can there be a deduction of the one year probation period
from the penalty of one year and one day to three years, six months, and twenty-one days
of imprisonment because an order placing the defendant on "probation" is not a "sentence,"
but is in effect a suspension of the imposition of the sentence. It is not a final judgment but
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 if the conditions are violated."
Lastly, probation is a mere privilege. Accordingly, the grant of probation 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. If the probationer
has proven to be unrepentant, as in the case of the petitioner, the State is not barred from
revoking such a privilege. Otherwise, the seriousness of the offense is lessened if probation
is not revoked.
The Petition is dismissed and the probation of the petitioner is hereby revoked.

Bala vs. Martinez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bala vs. Martinez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bala vs.

-An order revoking probation or modifying the terms thereof is unappealable.

-Probation is a mere privilege and rests on the court’s sound discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the lower court's decision.

On September 23, 1982, the probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising

Whether or not petitioner’s probation was terminated by the expiration of the

By his actuations, probationer-petitioner Manuel V. Bala has ridiculed the probation

The probation having been revoked, it is imperative that the probationer be

You might also like