Title
Bala vs. Martinez
Case
G.R. No. 67301
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1990
Manuel Bala's probation, granted after falsification conviction, was revoked post-expiration due to violations and subsequent convictions; jurisdiction retained despite residence change.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 67301)

Petitioner

Manuel V. Bala, previously sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law for falsification of a public document (Revised Penal Code, art. 172) and later placed on probation.

Respondents

Hon. Judge Antonio M. Martinez (RTC-Manila, Branch XX), the People of the Philippines, and Paul Ayang-Ang, Probation Officer, Manila Probation Office No. 4.

Key Dates

• January 3, 1978 – Trial court conviction of petitioner for falsification (Criminal Case No. 24443).
• April 9, 1980 – Court of Appeals affirms conviction.
• August 11, 1982 – RTC grants probation for one year.
• August 10, 1983 – Probation period nominally expires.
• December 8, 1983 – People file motion to revoke probation.
• April 2, 1984 – RTC-Manila denies petitioner’s motion to dismiss revocation proceedings.
• January 29, 1990 – Supreme Court issues decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990).
• Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976), as amended by P.D. 1990 (non-retroactive).
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 171 and 172.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, challenging the RTC order of April 2, 1984, which denied his motion to dismiss or strike out the People’s motion to revoke his probation.

Factual and Procedural Background

After conviction and affirmation on appeal, the trial court granted Bala probation on August 11, 1982, subject to standard conditions—including residence restrictions and supervisory reporting. Although the one-year period lapsed on August 10, 1983, no final discharge order issued because the probation officer had not submitted his report.

Motion to Revoke and Petitioner’s Objection

On December 8, 1983, the People moved to revoke probation for alleged violations. Petitioner opposed, arguing that (a) his probation period had expired and (b) his change of residence to Las Piñas shifted jurisdiction to that court under P.D. 968, Section 13.

RTC’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss

Branch XX denied the motion to dismiss, finding merit in continuing revocation proceedings and retaining jurisdiction despite petitioner’s contentions.

Issue 1: Automatic Termination of Probation

Under P.D. 968, probation does not terminate automatically upon expiration of its term; a final discharge order based on the probation officer’s report is required (Section 16). Absent that order, probation subsists until discharged or revoked.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Transfer of Venue

Probation proceedings attach to the court that granted the probation. All branches of the RTC in the National Capital Judicial Region (Metro Manila) are co-equal; petitioner’s intra-region residence change did not divest RTC-Manila of jurisdiction.

Violations of Probation Conditions

The probation officer’s reports revealed that Bala (a) failed to comply with employment and supervision requirements, (b) committed

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.