Pablo Vs Castillo

PABLO vs CASTILLO  In Rura vs.
Lopena the Court declared that

“previous” refers to conviction, and not to
ALEJANDRA PABLO petitioner(rep by PAO) vs. HON. commission of a crime.
SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO, Presiding Judge, Branch 43,
RTC Dagupan City and PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES,  At the time Rura was convicted of the crime
respondents. for which he was applying for probation, he
had no prior conviction.
 The Court has pronounced that the policy of
liberality of probation statutes cannot  In the present case of petitioner, when she
prevail against the categorical provisions of applied for probation in Criminal Cases Nos.
the law. 94-00197-D and 94-00198-D, she had a
previous conviction in Criminal Case No. 94-
 It is a basic rule of statutory construction 00199-D, which thereby disqualified her
that if a statute is clear, plain and free from from the benefits of probation.
ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without any  Probation law is not a penal statute, and
interpretation. therefore, the principle of liberal
interpretation is inapplicable.
 The policy of liberality of probation statutes
cannot prevail against the categorical  When the meaning is clearly discernible
provisions of the law. from the language of the statute, there is no
room for construction or interpretation.
 Nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c) qualifies
previous conviction as referring to a SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
conviction for a crime which is entirely Certiorari.
different from that for which the offender is
applying for probation or a crime which NATURE: Original petition for certiorari under Rule
arose out of a single act or transaction. 65 of the RC imputing GAD amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction of the RTC Branch 43,
 Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain Dagupan City, for denying petitionerÊs application
language, to the effect that a person who for probation and the motion for reconsideration of
was previously convicted by final judgment two Orders dated March 25, 1996 and April 29,
of an offense punishable by imprisonment 1996
of not less than one month and one day
and/or a fine of not less than two hundred
pesos, is disqualified from applying for
probation. This provision of law is definitive
and unqualified.
 There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c)

which qualifies „previous conviction‰ as
referring to a conviction for a crime which is
entirely different from that for which the
offender is applying for probation or a crime
which arose out of a single act or
transaction as petitioner would have the
court to
FACTS:  On March 25, 1996, the probation office
arrived at a favorable evaluation on the
1994: suitability of petitioner for probation.
 Petitioner Alejandra Pablo was charged with  However, the recommendation of the local
a violation of BP 22, (Bouncing Checks LawP, probation office was overruled by the
in 3 separate Informations, for issuing three National Probation Office – denying her
bad checks in the total amount of P2,334.00 application for probation on the ground that
each to complainant Nelson Mandap, in the petitioner is disqualified under Section 9
partial payment of a loan she obtained from of P.D. 968 (Probation Law).
him, knowing that at the time of the
issuance of such checks, she did not have  Respondent judge Castillo denied
sufficient funds. petitioner’s application for probation.
 Subject checks were dishonored by the  Petitioner then moved for reconsideration
drawee bank upon presentment for but same was denied.
payment, appearing that the current
account of petitioner had been closed, and ISSUE: WON the RTC acted with grave abuse of
she failed to pay the amount or make discretion in denying Pablo’s application for
arrangements for the payment thereof, probation on the ground of disqualification from
despite notice of dishonor. probation under Section 9 of P.D. 968.
HELD: NO. RTC IS CORRRECT
One of the disqualification enumerated under

Section 9 of the Probation Law, P.D. 968 is that (c):
The 3 cases were not consolidated - the first 2 were
raffled and assigned to Branch 43 while the third  those who have previously been convicted
case to Branch 41 or the RTC in Dagupan City. by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month
 On June 21, 1995, Branch 41 of the said and one day and/or fine of not less than
lower court rendered judgment on the last two hundred pesos;
3rd case (Criminal Case No. 94-0199-D), COMPLETE LIST:
a)those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment
convicting petitioner of the crime charged of more than six years;
and imposing upon her a fine of P4,648.00. b)those convicted of subversion or any crime against the
 On November 28, 1995, Branch 43 national security or the public order;
promulgated its decision on the 1st & 2nd c) those who have previously been convicted by final
case (cc # 94-00197-D & 94-00198- D), judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less
than one month and one day and/or fine of not less than two
finding petitioner guilty of violating B.P. Blg. hundred pesos;
22, and sentencing her to pay the amount d) those who have been once on probation under the
of P4,668.00 and to serve a prison term of provisions of this Decree; and
thirty (30) days in each case. e)those who are already serving sentence at the time the
substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable
 Petitioner applied for probation on the 1st & pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
2nd case which was given due course and the
 The National Probation Office denied
probation office was required to submit a
petitioner’s application for probation under
post-sentence investigation report.
Section 9 paragraph (c) P.D. 968 because a
prior conviction was entered against the
petitioner on June 21, 1995 in Criminal Case
No. 94-0199, penalizing her with a fine of
P4,648.00; thereby placing her within the
ambit of disqualification from probation
under Section 9 paragraph (c) of P.D. 968.
 It is well-settled that the probation law is

not a penalmstatute;
 and therefore, the principle of liberal
interpretation is inapplicable.
 And when the meaning is clearly discernible
from the language of the statute, there is no
room for construction or interpretation.
Probation Law is not a penal statute.
Courts have no authority to invoke liberal

interpretation or the spirit of the law where the
words of the statute themselves leave no room for
doubt or interpretation.
(Llamado vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 566 [1989])

Pablo Vs Castillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pablo Vs Castillo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pablo Vs Castillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PABLO vs CASTILLO  In Rura vs.

Lopena the Court declared that

 There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c)

HELD: NO. RTC IS CORRRECT

One of the disqualification enumerated under

 It is well-settled that the probation law is

Probation Law is not a penal statute.

Courts have no authority to invoke liberal

(Llamado vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 566 [1989])

You might also like