G.R. No. 189644 - Suyan vs. People

On October 27, 1995, an Information was filed against petitioner for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (possession/use of regulated drug).
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded guilty. On November 22, 1995, he was convicted and sentenced to six years of prisión correccional and costs. He applied for probation on the same date, and on February 16, 1996, the RTC issued a Probation Order for six years.

While on probation, petitioner was arrested on September 2 and October 20, 1999, for possession of a regulated drug. Two separate cases were docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-03073-D (Branch 43) and No. 99-03129-D (Branch 41).
On December 1, 1999, the Chief Probation Officer filed a Motion to Revoke Probation alleging recidivism and non-compliance. On December 15, 1999, the RTC revoked probation and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

On April 6, 2000, petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition with the CA, arguing denial of due process: no copy of the Motion to Revoke, no fact-finding, no warrant, no hearing with counsel.
On January 2, 2006, the CA granted the petition, annulled the revocation for procedural lapses under PD No. 968 and the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures, and remanded for full compliance with due‐process requirements.

On February 13, 2006, the Probation Office filed a Violation Report citing petitioner’s negative attitude, absences, failure to attend rehabilitation, and continued drug activities.
On March 22, 2006, the prosecution offered a Certification proving petitioner’s conviction and service of sentence in Branch 43 case from September 30, 2000 to September 8, 2003. On March 31, 2006, the RTC again revoked probation, finding due process was afforded; petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner appealed to the CA, which on March 27, 2009 (and September 9, 2009 resolution) affirmed the revocation, ruling due process was observed and that petitioner violated Condition 9 of his Probation Order by committing another offense.
Petitioner elevated the case to this Court, contending both procedural and substantive invalidity of the revocation.

Whether the RTC’s revocation of probation complied with due-process requirements: fact-finding investigation, Violation Report, warrant of arrest, hearing with opportunity to present evidence and counsel.

Whether petitioner’s commission and conviction of another offense while on probation violated the Probation Order (Condition 9) and Section 11 of the Probation Law, rendering probation ineffective.