Case Digest (G.R. No. 67301)
Facts:
Manuel V. Bala v. The Hon. Judge Antonio M. Martinez, The People of the Philippines, and Paul Ayang-Ang, Probation Officer, Manila Probation Office No. 4, G.R. No. L-67301, January 29, 1990, Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Manuel V. Bala, was convicted on January 3, 1978 by the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 24443 for falsification of a public or official document (Article 172, Revised Penal Code) and sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an indeterminate term of not less than one year and one day and not exceeding three years, six months and twenty-one days, plus fine and costs. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 9, 1980, and the case was remanded to the trial court for execution of judgment.
After remand, the trial court by order dated August 11, 1982 granted petitioner probation for one year subject to specified conditions and supervision by a probation officer. On September 23, 1982 petitioner sought permission from his supervising probation officer to transfer his residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision (33 Jingco Street), Las Piñas; the probation officer verbally approved the transfer. The one-year probationary period would have expired on August 10, 1983, but no order of final discharge issued because the probation officer had not submitted his final report.
On December 8, 1983 the People, through the Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, filed a motion to revoke petitioner’s probation alleging violations of its terms. Petitioner opposed on January 4, 1984, asserting that his probation had already expired and that a change of residence had transferred jurisdiction to the Executive Judge or RTC of Makati (which includes Las Piñas) under Section 13, P.D. No. 968. The probation officer filed on January 6, 1984 a motion to terminate probation with a progress report, then on January 30, 1984 filed a supplemental report recommending revocation in light of new facts.
Petitioner then moved to dismiss or strike out the motion to revoke on the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction and that probation had terminated. The trial judge (Branch XX, RTC Manila) denied the motion on April 2, 1984. Petitioner filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO) seeking reversal of that denial. The Solicitor General urged that the petition was premature because the trial court had not yet conducted the revocation hearing and that the assailed order only disposed of the venue/transfer issue. The Supreme Court noted and declined to apply P.D. 1990 (which amended Section 4 of P.D. 968) because it became effective January 15, 1985 and could not be given retroactive application to petitioner’s case.
The Court’s opinion recited that subsequent to the trial court’s denial, petitioner was in fact later convicted (April 30, 1984) in five separate informations by RTC, Branch XXX, Manila, for falsification of U.S. passports in Criminal Cases Nos. 29100–29103 and 29107; those convictions were affirmed on appeal with modifica...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari premature because the trial court had not yet conducted a hearing on the motion to revoke probation?
- Does the expiration of the probationary period alone effect an automatic termination of probation so as to preclude revocation by the court?
- Did petitioner's change of residence automatically transfer control and supervision of his probation to the Executive Judge/RTC of his new residence (Makati/Las Piñas) under P.D. No. 968, Section 13?
- Could a verbal permission from the probation officer substitute for the required prior written approval to cha...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)