Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 201 views

    Pedro Santos To Vs

    Uploaded by

    Ma Gabriellen Quijada-Tabuñag
    The petitioner was convicted of estafa and appealed his penalty to the Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals decision became final, the petitioner filed for probation which was denied by the respondent judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not among the offenders expressly enumerated in the probation law as being disqualified from receiving probation benefits. As such, the intent of the law is to allow probation benefits to those not included in the enumeration. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the denial of probation and declared the petitioner admitted to probation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pedro Santos To Vs

    Uploaded by

    Ma Gabriellen Quijada-Tabuñag
    201 views2 pages
    The petitioner was convicted of estafa and appealed his penalty to the Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals decision became final, the petitioner filed for probation which was denied by the respondent judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not among the offenders expressly enumerated in the probation law as being disqualified from receiving probation benefits. As such, the intent of the law is to allow probation benefits to those not included in the enumeration. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the denial of probation and declared the petitioner admitted to probation.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Pedro Santos to Vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was convicted of estafa and appealed his penalty to the Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals decision became final, the petitioner filed for probation which was denied by the respondent judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not among the offenders expressly enumerated in the probation law as being disqualified from receiving probation benefits. As such, the intent of the law is to allow probation benefits to those not included in the enumeration. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the denial of probation and declared the petitioner admitted to probation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    201 views2 pages

    Pedro Santos To Vs

    Uploaded by

    Ma Gabriellen Quijada-Tabuñag
    The petitioner was convicted of estafa and appealed his penalty to the Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals decision became final, the petitioner filed for probation which was denied by the respondent judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not among the offenders expressly enumerated in the probation law as being disqualified from receiving probation benefits. As such, the intent of the law is to allow probation benefits to those not included in the enumeration. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the denial of probation and declared the petitioner admitted to probation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEDRO SANTOS TO vs. HON.

    ERNANI CRUZ-PAO, Presiding Judge, Court of


    First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch XVIII, and JUAN Y. OCAMPO
    G.R. No. L-55130
    January 17, 1983

    FACTS:
    Express enumeration of disqualified offenders means that, intent of law is
    to allow benefits of probation to apply to those not included in the
    enumeration.
    Petitioner was convicted by respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of
    Rizal (Quezon City Branch) of the crime of estafa for having issued a bouncing check
    for P5,000.00. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals to reduce his penalty.
    Upon the Court of Appeals' decision becoming final, petitioner not having
    appealed therefrom, he filed a petition for probation with respondent judge, who,
    despite the favorable recommendation of the Probation Office, denied the petition
    on the following grounds:
    (a) to grant probation to petitioner will depreciate the seriousness of
    the offense
    committed, and
    (b) petitioner is not a penitent offender.
    A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner having been denied by the
    respondent judge, the present proceeding was resorted to, petitioner averring that
    the respondent judge erred in denying his petition for probation despite the
    recommendation for its approval by the Probation Office.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petitioner can avail the benefits of probation?

    RULING:
    The Solicitor General whose comment was required by this Court,
    recommends the granting of probation. As he points out, petitioner is not among the
    offenders enumerated in the probation law (Presidential Decree No. 968) from
    availing of the benefits of probation. Under Section 9 of said law, the disqualified
    offenders are the following:
    (a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than
    six years;
    (b) those convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
    (c) those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense
    punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of
    not less than two hundred pesos;

    (d) those who have been once on probation under the provisions of the
    decree; and
    (e) those who were already serving sentence at the time the substantive
    provisions of the decree became applicable, pursuant to Section 33.
    Under the above quoted provision, petitioner may not be disqualified from
    being entitled to the benefits of probation. Some other provisions have to be
    sought, if any, upon which to deny petitioner the benefits of probation which, from a
    reading of the law in its entirety, should with liberality, rather than undue strictness,
    be extended to anyone not listed as disqualified. In expressly enumerating
    offenders not qualified to enjoy the benefits of probation, the clear intent is to allow
    said benefits to those not included in the enumeration.
    If only for the above observation as to how the law should be applied in order
    that its objective could be realized and achieved, We cannot but find respondent
    judge's reasons for his denial of the petition for probation insufficient to justify a
    deviation from a policy of liberality with which the law should be applied.
    WHEREFORE, the order of the respondent judge denying probation is set
    aside, and petitioner is hereby declared admitted to probation, subject to the terms
    and conditions as are prescribed by the law, and recommended by the probation
    officer.

    You might also like