NIEL E. SUYAN VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

______________________

CASE ANALYSIS

______________________

Presented to the Instructor of Special Crime Investigation II

______________________

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Special Crime Investigation II

_______________________

By:
 CHAPTER I

THE CASE AND ITS NATURE

Introduction

(Cite a Literature and a Related Studies from 2015-2022)

(Follow APA format in giving your citation.)

Petitioner Neil E. Suyan, was charged with violation of Section 16 Article III

of Republic Act No.6425, otherwise known as THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF

1972. The Regional Trial Court awarded petitioner a Probation Order for six

year; however, he was arrested on two occasions on 1999 both for the violation of Sec.

16 Art. III of RA 6425. As a consequence, his probation was revoked by the RTC. The

petitioner appealed with the Court of Appeals arguing that he was denied due

process. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the RTC’s revocation of

the petitioner’s probation. The CA ordered the remand of the case; in compliance

thereof, the RTC conducted a hearing on the motion to revoke.

The Court issued an order revoking the probation of petitioner and directing him

to serve the sentence imposed upon him. The petitioner was revoked on the benefits of

probation. Which in the American law paradigm, probation is considered as an act of

clemency and grace, not a matter of right. It is a privilege granted by the state, not a right

to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The granting of a deferred sentence and

probation following a plea or verdict of guilty is a rehabilitative measure and such, is not

right but is a matter of a grace, privilege, or clemency granted to the deserving. As such,
even in the American criminal justice model probation should be granted only to the

deserving or, in our system, only to qualified “penitent offenders” who are willing to be

reformed and rehabilitated.

The CA denied his appeal. With regard to the procedural issues discussed in the

assailed Decision, it ruled that petitioner was afforded due process. A full-blown trial was

conducted precisely to allow him to refute the allegations made in the Motion to Revoke.

It held further that petitioner wasted this opportunity when, instead of rebutting the

allegations mentioned in the Violation Report, he merely questioned the absence of such

a report when his probation was first revoked. It added that the procedural infirmities in

the Motion to Revoke were cured when the RTC conducted a hearing in accordance with

the directive laid down in the First CA Case.

Objectives

This study aims to:

a. Determine the factual circumstance of the case.

b. Learn how the crime was committed by the accused.

c. Determine on how the judgement was made after the proceedings.

Annulled declare invalid (an official agreement,

decision, or result).

Factual is concerned with facts or contains facts,

rather than giving theories or personal

interpretations.

Penitent offenders  a person who repents of sin or a person

under church censure but admitted to

penance or reconciliation especially under the

direction of a confessor.

Petitioner One who presents a formal, written

application to a court or legislative body that

requests actions on a certain matter.

Probation the release of an offender from detention,

subject to a period of good behavior under

supervision.

Revoke put an end to the validity or operation of (a

decree, decision, or promise).

Verdict a decision on a disputed issue in a civil or

criminal case or an inquest.

CASE DOCUMENTATION

Nature of the Case

The case is punishable by the special penal law of the Philippines, which the

study is all about the violation of R.A 6425, THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF

1972, Section 16, Article III. This case study aims to determine the factual circumstances

that happens during the alleged act in violation of Section 16 article III of R.A 6425 by

the petitioner and the end result of the action made. Which the petitioner revoked on the

benefit of probation laws.

At the outset of his probation period, probationer showed manifested negative

attitude by incurring absences and not attending rehabilitation activities despite constant

follow-up by his supervising officers. He continued with his illegal drug activities despite

counselling and warning from this Office.

Obviously, probationer has failed to recognize the value of freedom and second

chance accorded him by the Honorable Court, his conduct and attitude bespeaks of his

deviant character, hence he is unworthy to continuously enjoy the privilege of probation.

On 31 March 2006, the RTC issued an Order revoking the probation. It ruled that

it had granted petitioner due process by affording him the full opportunity to contest the

Motion to Revoke; but that instead of rebutting the Violation Report, he merely

questioned the absence of a violation report when his probation was first revoked. The

RTC further held that there was positive testimony and documentary evidence showing

that petitioner had indeed violated the conditions of his probation. He never rebutted the
fact of his commission of another offense and conviction therefor while on probation. He

filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied.

Aggrieved, petitioner again filed an appeal with the CA. This time, he alleged that

he had been deprived of his constitutional right to due process when his probation was

ordered revoked. He further alleged that he had not been given ample opportunity to

refute the alleged violations committed by him while on probation. The probation officer

did not conduct a fact-finding investigation of the alleged violations, and, consequently,

petitioner was not furnished any results. After considering the nature and seriousness of

the alleged violations, the RTC did not issue any warrant for his arrest, as he had not been

afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in his favor with the assistance of his

counsel.

With regard to the specific grounds for revocation, petitioner claimed that the

evidence adduced against him did not refer to the grounds cited in the Motion to Revoke,

but instead, the evidence referred to alleged violations of Condition Nos. 3, 9 and 10 of

the Probation Order.

Circumstance/s Occurred

On 16 February 1996, the RTC issued a Probation Order covering a period of six

(6) years. While on probation, petitioner was arrested on two occasions, more specifically

on 2 September and 20 October 1999 for violating Section 16, Article III of R.A. No.

6425. Two separate information were filed against him, both of which were filed with the

RTC of Dagupan City. One of these cases was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-03073-
D before Branch 43 (Branch 43 case), and the other case as Criminal Case No. 99-03129-

D before Branch 41.

Personalities Involved

Neil E. Suyan The petitioner

People of the Philippines and the The respondents

Atty. Simplicio A. Navarro, Jr. The respondent

Actions and Interventions made by the public officers handling the case

On 1 December 1999, Atty. Simplicio A. Navarro, Jr. (Atty. Navarro), then the

Chief Probation and Parole Officer of Dagupan City, filed a Motion to Revoke Probation

(Motion to Revoke). Atty. Navarro alleged that petitioner has been apprehended twice for

drug possession while on probation. The former further alleged that petitioner was

considered a recidivist, whose commission of other offenses while on probation was a

serious violation of the terms thereof. Atty. Navarro also pointed out that petitioner was

no longer in a position to comply with the conditions of the latter’s probation, in view of

his incarceration.

On 15 December 1999, the RTC issued an order revoking the probation of

petitioner and directing him to serve the sentence imposed upon him. It denied his

Motion for Reconsideration.

On 2 January 2006, the CA in its Decision, granted the Rule 65 Petition by

annulling and set aside RTC’s revocation of petitioner’s probation. The CA ruled that the

trial court had not complied with the Probation Law and the procedural requisites for the

revocation of probation under the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures,

enumerated as follows:

1. No fact-finding investigation of the alleged violations was conducted by the

Probation Officer.

2. The Probation Office should have reported to respondent court the result of

said investigation, if any, upon its completion.

3. There was no Violation Report under P.A. Form No. 8, the contents of which

are enumerated under Section 38 of the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and

Procedures.

4. No warrant of arrest was issued by respondent court after considering the

nature and seriousness of the alleged violations based on the report, if any.

5. The petitioner should have been brought to respondent court for a hearing of

the violations charged, during which petitioner – with the right to counsel –

should have been informed of the violations charged and allowed to adduce

evidence in his favor.

the purpose of affording petitioner his right to due process pursuant to Presidential

Decree (PD) No. 968, and the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures.

In compliance with the CA Decision, the RTC conducted a hearing on the Motion

to Revoke. On 17 February 2006, a Violation Report dated 13 February 2006 was filed

by the Dagupan City Parole and Probation Office recommending the revocation of

probation.
 CHAPTER III

CASE ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSION

Case Analysis

Petitioner Neil E. Suyan, was charged with violation of Section 16 Article III

of Republic Act No.6425. The Regional Trial Court awarded petitioner a

Probation Order for six year; however, he was arrested on two occasions on 1999

both for the violation of Sec. 16 Art. III of RA 6425. As a consequence, his probation

was revoked by the RTC. The petitioner appealed with the Court of Appeals arguing

that he was denied due process. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside

the RTC’s revocation of the petitioner’s probation. The CA ordered the remand of the

case; in compliance thereof, the RTC conducted a hearing on the motion to revoke.

On 27 October 1995, an Information was filed against petlt10ner, charging him

with violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425. During

arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The RTC thereafter proceeded with trial.

On 22 November 1995, petitioner was convicted of the crime, for which he was

sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional and to pay the

costs. On even date, he filed his application for probation.

On 16 February 1996, the RTC issued a Probation Order covering a period of six

(6) years. While on probation, petitioner was arrested on two occasions, more specifically

on 2 September and 20 October 1999 for violating Section 16, Article III of R.A. No.
6425. Two separate information were filed against him, both of which were filed with the

RTC of Dagupan City. One of these cases was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-03073-

D before Branch 43 (Branch 43 case), and the other case as Criminal Case No. 99-03129-

D before Branch 41.

On 1 December 1999, Atty. Simplicio A. Navarro, Jr. (Atty. Navarro), then the

Chief Probation and Parole Officer of Dagupan City, filed a Motion to Revoke Probation

(Motion to Revoke). Atty. Navarro alleged that petitioner has been apprehended twice for

drug possession while on probation. The former further alleged that petitioner was

considered a recidivist, whose commission of other offenses while on probation was a

serious violation of the terms thereof Atty. Navarro also pointed out that petitioner was

no longer in a position to comply with the conditions of the latter’s probation, in view of

his incarceration.

On 15 December 1999, the RTC issued an order revoking the probation of

petitioner and directing him to serve the sentence imposed upon him. It denied his

Motion for Reconsideration.

Aggrieved, on 6 April 2000 petitioner filed a Rule 65 Petition with the CA (first

CA case), wherein he assailed the revocation of his probation. He argued that he was

denied due process as he was not furnished with a copy of the Motion to Revoke; and

when the motion was heard, he was not represented by his counsel of record.
Findings

Petitioner Neil E. Suyan, was charged with violation of Section 16 Article III

of Republic Act No.6425. The Regional Trial Court awarded petitioner a

Probation Order for six year; however, he was arrested on two occasions on 1999

both for the violation of Sec. 16 Art. III of RA 6425. As a consequence, his probation

was revoked by the RTC. The petitioner appealed with the Court of Appeals arguing

that he was denied due process. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside

the RTC’s revocation of the petitioner’s probation. The CA ordered the remand of the

case; in compliance thereof, the RTC conducted a hearing on the motion to revoke.

Consequently, his commission of another offense is a direct violation of

Condition No. 9 of his Probation Order, and the effects are clearly outlined in Section 11

of the Probation Law.

Section 11 of the Probation Law provides that the commission of another offense shall

render the probation order ineffective. Section 11 states:

Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. - A probation order shall take effect upon

its issuance, at which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences

thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions

prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve

the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.
Conclusion

Therefore, Petitioner does not deny the fact that he has been convicted, and that

he has served out his sentence for another offense while on probation. Consequently, his

commission of another offense is a direct violation of Condition No. 9 of his Probation

Order, and the effects are clearly outlined in Section 11 of the Probation Law. Section 11

of the Probation Law provides that the commission of another offense shall render the

probation order ineffective. Based on the foregoing, the CA was correct in revoking the

probation of petitioner and ordering him to serve the penalty for the offense for which he

was placed on probation. As probation is a mere discretionary grant, petitioner was bound

to observe full obedience to the terms and conditions pertaining to the probation order or

run the risk of revocation of this privilege. Regrettably, petitioner wasted the opportunity

granted him by the RTC to remain outside prison bars, and must now suffer the

consequences of his violation. The Court's discretion to grant probation is to be exercised

primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of the

accused. Having the power to grant probation, it follows that the trial court also has the

power to order its revocation in a proper case and under appropriate circumstances.

Premises considered the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 27

March 2009 and Resolution dated 9 September 2009.