Case Digest (G.R. No. 240843)
Facts:
Jaime Chua Ching v. Fernando Ching, G.R. No. 240843, June 03, 2019, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Jaime Chua Ching; respondent is his father, Fernando Ching, who pursued the appeal below.The case arose from an Information filed on July 2, 2010 in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of the City of Manila charging petitioner with Falsification of a Public Document committed by a private individual, under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). After trial, the MeTC issued a Decision dated August 14, 2015 finding petitioner guilty and sentencing him to an indeterminate term (2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 6 years prision correccional) and a fine of P5,000.00; the MeTC found that petitioner falsified his COMELEC voter registration by indicating Filipino citizenship when he was a Chinese citizen.
Instead of appealing the conviction, petitioner filed an Application for Probation on September 1, 2015, asserting he was not disqualified under P.D. No. 968 (the Probation Law of 1976, as amended) and offering to comply with probation conditions. The Parole and Probation Office of Manila (PPO-Manila) prepared a Post-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR) dated December 14, 2015 recommending denial, citing petitioner’s derogatory records and a perceived high risk of recidivism and need for institutional correctional treatment.
Relying on the PSIR, the MeTC issued an Order dated January 15, 2016 directing issuance of a warrant of arrest to enforce the judgment and denied reconsideration in an Order dated March 7, 2016. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which in a Decision dated February 15, 2017 reversed the MeTC and granted probation, reasoning the MeTC had gravely abused its discretion by depending solely on the PPO-Manila recommendation and that petitioner was not a disqualified offender and could be suitably reformed under probation.
Respondent (petitioner’s father) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated November 28, 2017, the CA reversed the RTC, reinstating the MeTC’s denial of probation on the ground that petitioner’s falsification of voter registration amounted to an election offense under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and that Section 264 of the OEC bars probation for those convicted of election offenses; the CA also cite...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly reinstate the denial of petitioner’s application for probation?
- Did the Metropolitan Trial Court gravely abuse its discretion by denying probation based solely on the Probation O...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)