Probation After Appeal: Understanding Philippine Law on Post-Conviction Remedies

When Appealing a Conviction Forfeits Your Right to Probation in the Philippines

TLDR: In the Philippines, if you appeal your criminal conviction, you generally lose the opportunity to apply for probation. This is due to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law to disqualify those who appeal their convictions from seeking probation. The Supreme Court case of Fajardo v. Court of Appeals clarifies this rule, emphasizing that the law in effect at the time of conviction determines probation eligibility, not the law at the time of the offense.

G.R. No. 128508, February 01, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine being convicted of a crime and facing jail time. Probation offers a chance to serve your sentence outside of prison, under supervision, allowing you to maintain your job and family life. But what happens if you believe you were wrongly convicted and decide to appeal? In the Philippines, this decision carries significant consequences regarding probation, as highlighted in the case of Daniel G. Fajardo v. Court of Appeals. This case underscores a critical aspect of Philippine criminal procedure: appealing your conviction typically bars you from accessing probation.

Daniel G. Fajardo was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. After his conviction in 1988, he appealed. Years later, when his appeal failed, he sought probation, arguing that at the time he committed the offense in 1981, appealing a conviction did not disqualify one from probation. The central legal question became: Can Fajardo still apply for probation despite having appealed his conviction, considering the amendments to the Probation Law introduced by Presidential Decree No. 1990?

LEGAL CONTEXT: PROBATION AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1990

Probation in the Philippines is governed by Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as the Probation Law of 1976. Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. It’s a privilege, not a right, intended to give deserving offenders a second chance at rehabilitation outside of prison walls.

Originally, under P.D. No. 968, there was ambiguity regarding whether appealing a conviction would preclude probation. However, this changed with the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 1990 on October 5, 1985. P.D. No. 1990 explicitly amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 to include a crucial disqualification. The amended section now reads:

“SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation x x x. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.” (Emphasis supplied)

This amendment clearly states that if a defendant appeals their conviction, they are no longer eligible to apply for probation. The rationale behind this amendment is to streamline the process and prevent the probation system from being used as a mere delaying tactic by those not genuinely seeking rehabilitation. The law intends probation to be for those who accept their conviction and are ready to reform, not for those still contesting their guilt through appeals.

A key legal concept raised in Fajardo’s case was whether P.D. No. 1990 was an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one that retroactively punishes an act that was innocent when committed, or increases the penalty for a crime after its commission, or alters the legal rules of evidence to receive less, or different testimony, than was required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Crucially, ex post facto laws are prohibited under the Philippine Constitution. Fajardo argued that applying P.D. No. 1990 to him, since the offense was committed before its effectivity, would be an ex post facto application.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FAJARDO’S FIGHT FOR PROBATION

The narrative of Fajardo v. Court of Appeals unfolds as follows:

1981: Daniel Fajardo commits the offense of violating B.P. 22. At this time, the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968) is in effect, and the explicit disqualification for those who appeal their conviction is not yet present.

October 5, 1985: Presidential Decree No. 1990 is issued, amending P.D. No. 968 to explicitly bar probation for those who appeal their convictions.

July 16, 1986: P.D. No. 1990 becomes effective after its publication in the Official Gazette and the lapse of fifteen days.

May 26, 1988: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City convicts Fajardo of violating B.P. 22 and sentences him to eight months imprisonment.

1988: Fajardo appeals his conviction to the Court of Appeals.

February 27, 1990: The Court of Appeals affirms Fajardo’s conviction.

August 20, 1990: The Supreme Court denies Fajardo’s petition for review, upholding the conviction.

June 2, 1995: After the case is remanded to the RTC, Fajardo files a motion for probation. He argues that he should be eligible because when he committed the offense in 1981, appealing did not disqualify probation, and applying P.D. No. 1990 to him would be ex post facto.

January 5, 1996: The RTC denies Fajardo’s motion for probation, citing P.D. No. 1990.

July 29, 1996: Fajardo petitions the Court of Appeals via certiorari, challenging the RTC’s denial of probation.

November 12, 1996: The Court of Appeals denies Fajardo’s petition.

Supreme Court Decision (February 1, 1999): The Supreme Court denies Fajardo’s appeal and affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Pardo, firmly rejected Fajardo’s arguments. The Court stated:

“At issue in this case is whether petitioner could qualify to apply for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 since he had appealed from his conviction in 1988, after Presidential Decree No. 1990 amending Presidential Decree No. 968, became effective in 1986, providing that

ASG Law