Title
Soriano vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 123936
Decision Date
Mar 4, 1999
Petitioner's probation revoked for non-compliance with court orders, failure to pay civil liability, and violating probation terms, upheld by higher courts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154464)

Background of the Case

On December 7, 1993, Soriano was sentenced for his offenses, leading to his probation being granted on March 8, 1994. The terms of his probation notably included obligations to meet family responsibilities, maintain specific employment or engage in vocational training, and indemnify the heirs of the victim, Isidrino Daluyong, in the amount of P98,560.00.

Motion to Cancel Probation

On April 26, 1994, Assistant Prosecutor Benjamin A. Fadera filed a motion to cancel Soriano's probation, citing his failure to satisfy civil liability and his alleged commission of another crime. The Zambales Parole and Probation Office initially recommended allowing Soriano to continue probation, urging him to submit a payment program instead. The trial court directed him to submit a program for payment rather than immediately revoke his probation.

Early Violations and Trials

Nelda Da Maycong, the supervising officer, raised concerns regarding Soriano's failure to indemnify the victim’s heirs after discovering that Soriano's father received a substantial insurance payment related to the accident. Following manifestations from Da Maycong about these violations, on August 15, 1994, the court instructed Soriano again to submit a payment program.

Contempt of Court

Soriano subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, stating he did not receive the previous order due to a failure of communication from his counsel. However, on October 4, 1994, the trial court found Soriano in contempt of court for his non-compliance with previous orders and revoked his probation, sentencing him to serve the original penalty.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Soriano challenged the trial court's order by filing a special civil action for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, alleging that the judge had abused discretion in revoking his probation based on his purported non-compliance. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition, emphasizing Soriano's "stubborn unwillingness" to comply with court orders and reinforcing the legitimacy of revocation given his alleged violations.

Petitioner's Arguments

In his appeal, Soriano contended that he did not deliberately ignore the court's orders since he had not been informed promptly by his counsel, attributing his financial inability to comply with the payment requirement to poverty. He argued that conditioning probation on civil liability contravened the equal protection clause of the Constitution. He referenced previous decisions which suggested that conditions of probation should be reasonable and consider the probationer's capacity.

Response from the Solicitor General

The Solicitor General advocated for the dismissal of Soriano's petition, asserting that his violations justified the revocation of probation, noting that the case is distinct from precedents cited b

...continue reading

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