Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 15493 entitled, "Agustin Salgado v. Hon.
Antonio P. Solano, et al.," which affirmed the Order dated December 22,
1987 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 86) sustaining its
previous order dated November 18, 1987 directing the issuance of a writ of
execution to enforce the civil liability of herein petitioner in Criminal Case
No. 0-33798.
Petitioner was charged with the crime of serious physical injuries in Criminal
Case No. 0-33798 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Agustin Salgado,"
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 86). After trial,
judgment was rendered on October 16, 1986 finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the
decision, states:
On October 17, 1986, petitioner filed an application for probation with the
trial court. The application was granted in an Order dated April 15, 1987.
The order contained, among others, the following condition:
For the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, 1987,
petitioner complied with the above condition by paying in checks the said
sum of P2,000.00 monthly, through the City Probation Officer, Perla Diaz
Alonzo. Private respondent Francisco Lukban, Jr. voluntarily accepted the
checks and subsequently encashed them (p. 19, Rollo).
On November 18, 1987, the trial court issued an order granting the motion
for issuance of a writ of execution. A motion for reconsideration was filed by
petitioner but it was denied on December 22, 1987. After the denial of his
motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed directly with this Court a
petition for review of the trial court's order granting the motion for issuance
of a writ of execution. We referred the petition to the Court of Appeals in a
resolution dated April 13, 1988 (p. 18, Rollo).
The petitioner went to this Court via a petition for review which was filed on
September 26, 1989 and raised the following assignment of errors:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
In its decision affirming the order of the trial court granting private
respondent's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, respondent
Court of Appeals advanced three (3) reasons: 1) that the decision dated
October 16, 1986 had become final and executory and the judge who
rendered the decision cannot lawfully alter or modify it; 2) that it is clear
that the probation law provides only for the suspension of sentence imposed
on the accused; that it has absolutely no beating on his civil liability and that
none of the conditions listed under Section 10 of the Probation Law relates
to civil liability; and 3) that private respondent is not estopped because he
had nothing to do with the filing and the granting of the probation.
There is no question that the decision of October 16, 1986 in Criminal Case
No. Q-33798 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of serious physical injuries had become final and executory because the
filing by respondent of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of his
right to appeal (See Section 4 of P.D. 968). Likewise, the judgment finding
petitioner liable to private respondent for P126,633.50 as actual damages
and P50,000.00 as consequential damages had also become final because no
appeal was taken therefrom. Hence, it is beyond the power of the trial court
to alter or modify. In the case of Samson v. Hon. Montejo, L-18605, October
31, 1963, 9 SCRA 419, 422-423 cited by respondent appellate court, it was
held:
We do not believe, however, that the order dated April 15, 1987 granting
the application for probation and imposing some conditions therein altered
or modified the decision dated October 16, 1986. The April 15, 1987 Order
of the trial court granting the application for probation and providing as one
of the conditions therein that petitioner indemnify private respondent
P2,000.00 monthly during the period of probation did not increase or
decrease the civil liability adjudged against petitioner but merely provided
for the manner of payment by the accused of his civil liability during the
period of probation.
In the case of Florentino L. Baclayon v. Hon. Pacito G. Mutia, et al., G.R. No.
59298, April 30, 1984, 129 SCRA 148, We ruled that the conditions listed
under Section 10 of the Probation Law are not exclusive. Courts are allowed
to impose practically any term it chooses, the only limitation being that it
does not jeopardize the constitutional rights of the accused. Courts may
impose conditions with the end that these conditions would help the
probationer develop into a law-abiding individual. Thus,
The trial court is given the discretion to impose conditions in the order
granting probation "as it may deem best." As already stated, it is not only
limited to those listed under Section 10 of the Probation Law. Thus, under
Section 26, paragraph (d) of the Rules on Probation Methods and
Procedures, among the conditions which may be imposed in the order
granting probation is:
However, this is not to say that the manner by which the probationer should
satisfy the payment of his civil liability in a criminal case during the
probation period may be demanded at will by him. It is necessary that the
condition which provides for a program of payment of his civil liability will
address the offender's needs and capacity. Such need may be ascertained
from the findings and recommendations in the post-sentence investigation
report submitted by the Probation Officer after investigation of the financial
capacity of the offender and that such condition is to the end that the
interest of the state and the reformation of the probationer is best served.
Counting from April 15, 1987, the date of issuance of the order granting
probation which under the law is also the date of its effectivity (Sec. 11, P.D.
968), the probation period must have lapsed by now. Hence, the order for
petitioner to indemnify the private respondent in the amount of P2,000.00
monthly during the period of probationmust have also lapsed. If such were
the case, there would therefore, be no more obstacle for the private
respondent to enforce the execution of the balance of the civil liability of the
petitioner. However, the records are bereft of allegations to this effect.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated March 16, 1989
of respondent Court of Appeals affirming the order of the trial court granting
the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution as well as the resolution
dated August 3, 1989 of the same court are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.