SORIANO v.

CA
G.R. No. 123936
March 4, 1999
Financial capacity in probation cases
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA in which it upheld
the trial courts order holding petitioner in contempt and revoking his probation. Ronald
Soriano was convicted of the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide, serious
physical injuries, and damages to property on December 7, 1993. His application for
probation was granted on March 8, 1994 under the condition that he is to meet his family
responsibilities, devote to an employ, and indemnify the heirs of the victim, Isidrino
Daluyong the amount of Php98,560. On April, Asst. Prosecutor Benjamin Fadera filed a
motion to cancel Sorianos probation due to failure to satisfy the civil liability to heirs of the
victim, which was denied. Instead, Soriano was ordered to submit a program of payment of
the civil liability imposed on him. However, probation office Nelda Da Maycong received
information that Sorianos father received money from the insurance of the vehicle involved
in the accident; yet, the same was not turned over to the Daluyongs. Da Maycong asked for
Soriano to explain, lest he be cited in contempt. While the counsel received the notice of the
order, the counsel failed to notify the petition and thus Soriano was held in contempt and they
also revoked his grant of probation. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari,
claiming that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion for revoking his
probation. However, the same was dismissed.
ISSUE/s: Whether or not the revocation of petitioners probation was lawful and proper.
HELD: The revocation was lawful and proper. Petitioners refusal to comply with the court
orders was deliberate, despite claims that they were not. Instead of complying with the
directive, he instead questioned the constitutionality of the order and harped his alleged
poverty as failure to comply. The requirement for civil liability is not violative to the equal
protection clause of the Constitution, as the payment of such is not made a condition
precedent to probation. One can assert of having been denied equal protection when payment
was made a condition precedent to probation. In this case, the petitioners application had
already been granted. This was not an arbitrary imposition but one required by law, as a
consequence for having been convicted of a crime. He may indeed be poor but furnishing the
trial court with program of payment for his civil liability would allow him to formulate a
program that meets his needs and capacity. Regrettably, he has squandered the opportunity
granted to him to remain outside prison bars and must not suffer the consequences for his
violations. Wherefore, the petition is denied and the assailed decision of the CA, affirmed.