The Probation Law

PD 968 AS AMENDED BY PD NO. 1257 AND AS FURTHER AMENDED BY BP

BLG. 76 AND PD NO. 1990

DEFINITION OF TERMS

(a) "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.

(b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation.

(c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a
referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both.

PURPOSE

(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by

providing him with individualized treatment;

(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender

which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and

(c) prevent the commission of offenses.

Grant of Probation, manner and

conditions

(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such
place as may be specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;

(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified
by said officer.

Grant of Probation, manner and conditions

The court may also require the probationer to:

(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;

(b) meet his family responsibilities;

(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said

employment without the prior written approval of the probation officer;

Grant of Probation, manner and conditions

(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and

treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when
required for that purpose;

(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;

(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or

residence of persons on probation;

(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;

Grant of Probation, manner and

conditions

(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;

(i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and
place or work;

(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its
prior written approval; or

(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and
not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of
conscience.

Question

What will happen if a

probationer violates the
conditions of probation?

Answer
1.

The court may modify the conditions of probation

or revoke the same.

2. If the violation is serious, the court may order the

probationer to serve his prison sentence.
3. The probationer may also be arrested and criminally prosecuted
if the violation is a criminal
offense.
The court order shall not be subject to appeal.

CRITERIA OF PLACING AN OFFENDER ON

PROBATION
The court shall consider
1.

all information relative,

. Character
.

antecedents

environment

mental, and

. physical

condition of the offender,

2. available institutional and community resources

CRITERIA OF PLACING AN OFFENDER ON

PROBATION

Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:

(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most
effectively by his commitment to an institution; or

(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit
another crime; or

(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS

1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than

6 years.

Francisco v. CA, 243 SCRA 384,

The Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple
prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into
account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for
the probation. The law uses the word maximum term, and not total
term. It is enough that each of the prison term does not exceed 6 years.
The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed,
when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable
period. (Q9, 1997 Bar)

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS

2. Convicted of any crime against the national security (treason,

espionage, piracy, etc.) or the public order (rebellion, sedition, direct
assault, resistance, etc.).

3. Who have been previously 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 P 200. (Q2, 1993 Bar)

4. Who have been once on probation.

5. Who are already serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of

the Decree.

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS

Except for the reasons specified by the law, a trial court should not deny a
petition for probation, especially when the probation officer has favorably
recommended the grant of probation.

Even if at the time of conviction the accused was qualified for probation but at
the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not
entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of
the time the application is filed in court. (Bernardo v. Judge Balagot, 86561, Nov.
10, 1992) Supposing, an accused was convicted of a crime for which he was
sentenced to a maximum sentence of 10 years. While affirming the judgment of
conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of 4 years and
4 months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. The accused
now applies for probation. In this case, the accused is not entitled to probation.
The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a
sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation. (Bernardo v. Balagot, supra;
Francisco v. CA; De la Cruz v. Judge Callejo) (Q3, 1995 Bar; Q17, 1994 Bar)

PERIOD OF PROBATION
How long is the period of probation?
1.

not more than 2 years if the sentence of the offender is 1 year or less.

2. not more than 6 years if the sentence is more than

one year.
3. When the penalty is a fine only and the offender is made to serve
subsidiary imprisonment, probation shall be twice the total number of days
of subsidiary
imprisonment

ARREST OF PROBATIONER

At any time during 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. The defendant may be
admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be
applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. 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

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.
Upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation,
the court may order the final discharge of the probationer.
This shall have the following effects:
a. case is deemed terminated.
b. all civil rights suspended or lost are restored.
c. offender's liability for any fine imposed is discharged.

The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a
copy of such order.

TERMINATION OF PROBATION
The expiration of the probation period alone does not automatically
terminate probation. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
must first be issued by the court, 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. [Bala v.
Martinez]

Questions

Who can apply for Probation? ans. any first time convicted offender who is 18 years old or above.

Is probation a right? ans. no, it is a mere privilege for adult offenders. Under RA 9344 (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.

Where shall an application for Probation be filed? ans. the application shall be filed with the court that tried
and sentenced the offender.

What will happen if the application for Probation is denied? ans. the offender will be sent by the sentencing
court to prison to serve his sentence.

When should an application for Probation be filed? ans. anytime before the offender starts serving his
sentence but within 15 days from the promulgation of notice of judgment of conviction. Under section 42
of RA 9344, The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the court may after it shall have sentenced a
child in conflict with the law and upon application at anytime placed the child on probation in lieu of
service of his sentence.

May an offender be released from confinement while his application for Probation is pending? ans. yes, the
applicant may be released under the bail he filed in the criminal case or under recognizance.

How many times can one be granted Probation? ans. only once.

Summary

RULES ON GRANT OF PROBATION

1. After having convicted and sentenced a defendant, the trial court may
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation,
upon application by the defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal.
2. Probation may be granted whether the sentenced imposed a a term of
imprisonment or fine only.
3. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected an appeal.
4. Filing of application for probation operate as a waiver of the right to appeal.
5. The order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
6. Accessory penalties are deemed suspended once probation is granted.
7. The convict is not immediately put on probation. There shall be a prior
investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court.

Question
Question: Does the probation law apply to Drug Traffickers and Pushers?
Answer: NO
Section 24 of RA 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) states
that:
Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers.
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act,
regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended.

Cabatingan vs. Sandiganbayan, 102 SCRA 187

Facts:

Mr and Mrs. Cabatingan as alleged by the probation officer, operated an illegal jai-alai
betting station and that Mrs.Cabatingan is facing again another malversation before the
tanodbayan. The sandiganbayan denied his application for probation based merely on the
report of the probation officer.

Held:

There is ample evidence showing that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of
probation. She does not appear to be a hardened criminal who is beyond correction or
redemption. She has shown repentance for the offense she had committed. The
sandiganbayan merely relied on the report of the probation officer which in itself is mostly
hearsay and it is controverted. The case was remanded to the sandiganbayan to conduct
further hearings on application for probation. Although probation is not a right but it is a
privilege still if there is no disqualification, it must be granted.

Tolentino vs. Judge Alconcel, 121 SCRA 92

Facts:

Tolentino was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drug Act when he was
caught in possession of marijuana. He was sentenced to 6montha and 1day to
2years and 4months of imprisonment. He applied for probation. The probation
officer recommended that he be placed on 2years probation but the judge denied.

Contention of the State: Probation cant be granted to Tolentino because it will

depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

Tolentino vs. Judge Alconcel, 121 SCRA

92
Held:

PD 968 states that probation shall be denied if Offender is 1. In need of correctional treatment that can
be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution. 2. There is an undue risk that during
the period of probation, the offender will commit another crime.3. Probation will depreciate the
seriousness of the offence committed.

Judge Alconcel concluded that it will depreciate the seriousness of the offense based primarily on the
admission of the petitioner himself that he was actually caught in the act of selling marijuana
cigarettes. He merely attempted to justify his criminal act by explaining that he only needed money
for the family during the Christmas season.

Probation cannot be granted because it will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

Anandy vs. People, 161 SCRA 436

Facts

Juanita Anandy was found guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. She was caught with dried leaves of
marijuana and 60 pieces of cigarette wrapper. He was sentenced to suffer 6 years and 1day with cost. He filed an
application for probation but was denied.

Contention of the state: it is the intention of the law to extend the beneficial effect of the probation law only to
correccional penalties which have 6years and penalties afflictive are excluded.

Contention of the accused: PD 1990 was not intended to deny probation benefits to those sentenced to 6years and
1day. Anandy is still a government subject for probation and can still be reformed and rehabilitated as shown by
recommendation of the probation officer. His penalty exceeds only 1day.

Held:

Ruled in favor of the state. Probation law shall not be extended to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6years.

Grant of probation is not automatic but ministerial. Probation is a privilege and its grant rest on upon the discretion of
the court. If the judge imposed 6years and 1day, he doesnt intend to the accused to be qualified for 1day, so 1day is
important and cannot be waived.

Llamado vs. CA, 174 SCRA 566

Facts:

Llamado and Pascual, treasurer and president of Pam Asia Finance Corporation were charged with violation of BP
22. They co-signed a postdated check on the amount of P186,500. Pascual fled out of the country. Llamado was
convicted on March 1987 and was sentenced to prision correccional of 1year imprisonment. He orally notified the
RTC that he will appeal. The RTC forwarded the case to the Court of Appeals. CA notified him to file his statement
but he filed probation on the RTC which was then denied. He filed petition to the CA but the latter denied it
because appeal was already completed.

Contention of the state: the period for application for probation was after the trial court shall have convicted and
sentenced the defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence.

Contention of the accused: penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the accused and to avoid two
literal and strict applications of the provisions of PD 1990 which would defeat its purpose.

Held:

Probation law is not a penal law. Petitioners right to apply for probation was lost when he perfected his appeal
from the judgment of conviction. Once you apply for an appeal, you cannot apply for probation. Once you have
already appealed and later withdraw it before the decision to grant or dismiss the probation, you can no longer
file for probation because the lower court has cost its jurisdiction over the case.

Bala vs. Judge Martinez, 181 SCRA

459
Facts:

Manuel Bala was found guilty of the crime of falsification of public document removing and substituting the
picture of Maria Eloisa Diazon attached to her US passport with that of Florencia Notarte Bala.

Manuel was then placed under probation for 1year, subject to conditions to give him a chance to change hope
for self-respect and better life which should have expired on August 10, 1983 but allegedly violated it. After a
month, obtaining permission from the probation officer, he transfers residence thru verbal agreement.

Contention of the state: the probation of the defendant is not a sentence but a suspension.

Contention of the accused: he was no longer under probation because the period terminated on August 10,
1983. Thus, no valid reason existed to revoke.

Held:

Expiration of period of probation alone does not automatically terminate probation. A final order of discharge
from the court is required. Probation is irrevocable before a final judgment or discharge by the court.
Probationer failed to reunite with responsible society, an order revoking probation is unappealable. During the
probation, the court may issue a warrant of arrest for the probationer for violation of any of the conditions and
to serve the sentence originally imposed.

Salgado vs. CA, 189 SCRA 304

Facts:

Salgado was charged with physical injuries and to suffer imprisonment of 4months and 20days with accessories. He
has civil liability of P176,333. He filed an application for probation and one of the condition is that he should indemnify
Lukban a monthly installment of P2,000 during the entire period of his probation. Salgado complied by issuing checks.
Lukban filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution and it was granted.

Contention of the state:

probation law provides only suspension of sentence imposed on the convict that it has absolutely no beating on his civil
liability and that none of the conditions listed relates to civil liability.

Contention of the accused:

Modification of civil liability of Salgado is unauthorized and not sanctioned by law.

Held:

The condition of the pardon of indemnifying the victim on an installment basis did not decrease the civil liability
adjudged against Salgado but merely provided for the manner of payment of civil liability during the probation period.

Although execution of sentence is suspended, it does not mean that the civil liability is extinguished. Article 113
provides that offender shall continue to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights.

Probation law does not carry the extinction of civil liability and does not restore relinquished rights.

Francisco vs. CA, April 6, 1995

Facts:

Pablo, upon humiliating his employees, was accused of multiple grave oral defamation in five (5) separate information instituted by five
of his employees, each information charging him with gravely maligning them on four (4) different days, i.e., from April 9-12 , 1980.
January 2, 1990, after nearly 10 years, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61, found Francisco, guilty of grave oral
defamation, in four of the five cases filed against him, and sentenced him to a prision term of 1year and 1day to 1year and 8months of
prision correccional in each crime committed on each date of each case, as alleged in the information.

Issue: whether petitioner is still qualified to avail of probation even after appealing his conviction to he RTC which affirmed the MeTC
except with regard to the duration of the penalties imposed.

Held:

Fixing the cut-off point at maximum term of six(6) years imprisonment for probation is based on the assumption that those sentenced to
higher penalties pose too great a risk to society, not just because of their demonstrated capability for serious wrong doing but because
of the gravity and seriousness consequences for the offences they might further commit. The probation law, as amended, disqualifies
only those who have been convicted to grave felonies as defined in article 9 in relation to article 25of the RPC, and not necessarily
those who have been convicted of multiple offenses in a single proceeding who are deemed to be less perverse.

The law, simply, does not allow probation after an appeal has been perfected. Accordingly, considering that the jurisprudence treats
appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies, and petitioner appealed from is conviction by the MeTC although the imposed
penalties were already probationable, and in his appeal, asserted only his innocence and did not even raise the issue of the propriety of
the penalties imposed on him, andfinally, he filled an application of probation outside the period for perfecting an appeal granting he
was otherwise eligible for probation, the instant petition for review is hereby denied.

OCA vs. Librado, 260 SCRA 714

Facts:

Vicente Librado is deputy sheriff of the MTCC of Iligan City. On September 19, 1994, he was charged
with violation of R.A. No. 6425 for selling and having possession certain quantities of prohibited drugs
known as metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and marijuana. He was subsequently found
guilty and sentenced to 6years of imprisonment. Respondent admits that he had been convicted of
violation of R.A. No. 6425 and claims that he is in probation.

Held:

This case involves a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a ground for disciplinary action
under Civil Service Law is considered as grave offenses punishable, upon first commission, by
dismissal. The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct, which involves moral turpitude. While
indeed the purpose of the probation law is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten
that unlike pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of which the person under probation has
been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the
government service. He may seek to reenter government service, but only after he has shown that
he is fit to serve once again.

People vs. Evangelista, 235 SCRA

625
Facts

On December 7, 1993, the RTC of Zambales, branch 69 found Soriano liable for the death of Isidrino Dalusong and convicted
him of the crime of homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Soriano was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 2years, 4months and 1day to 6years of prision correccional. Soriano filed an application
for probation which the RTC granted for a period of 3 to 6years with a condition that Soriano will indemnify the heirs of
Dalusong in the amount of P98,560.00 as ordered. On April 26, 1994, provincial state prosecutor Benjamin Federa filed a
motion to cancel probation, on the ground of failure to indemnify the heirs of Dalusong. The RTC denied the motion to cancel
probation, but ordered Soriano to submit within 10days from notice his program of payment of the civil liability. Instead of
complying with this latest order, Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he had not personally received a copy
of the order. RTC issued an order ordering the detention of Soriano for 10days for contempt of court, revoking the March 8,
1994 order granting probation and order him to serve the sentence originally imposed.

Contention of Soriano: the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking the probation order for failure to satisfy his
civil liabilities.

Held:

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the revocation of Sorianos probation was lawful and proper. The revocation of
probation was properly assailed by Soriano through a special civil action of certiorari, which could not have similarly attached
the judgment of contempt.

THE END

THANK YOU
FOR LISTENING