G.R. No. L-63400. March 18, 1983. EDUARDO TOLENTINO y SAMONTE, petitioner, vs. HON. AMANTE Q. ALCONCEL, Judge, Circuit Criminal Court, Sixth Judicial District, Manila, respondent.
FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Tolentino was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act ( Republic Act No. 6425 ) for selling marijuana. Initially pleading not guilty, he later sought to change his plea to guilty for the lesser offense of possession under Section 8 of the same Act. The prosecution did not object, and the court allowed the change of plea. Consequently, the Circuit Criminal Court, presided by respondent Judge Amante Q. Alconcel, sentenced Tolentino to imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to two years and four months, plus a fine.
Following his conviction, Tolentino applied for probation. The probation officer conducted a post-sentence investigation and recommended granting a two-year probation, citing Tolentino’s potential reformation. However, respondent Judge denied the application, ruling that granting probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting this petition for certiorari, wherein he argues the judge committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did respondent Judge commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for probation on the ground that it would depreciate the seriousness of the offense?

RULING

No, the Supreme Court held that respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The grant of probation is not a right but a discretionary privilege, contingent upon the court’s determination that it serves the ends of justice and the best interest of the public, not merely the offender’s reformation. Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 968 explicitly mandates denial of probation if the court finds it would depreciate the seriousness of the offense.
The Court found the denial justified based on Tolentino’s own admission, as reflected in the probation officer’s report, that he was actually caught selling marijuana cigarettes. His attempt to justify the act as a means to earn money for the family during Christmas did not mitigate its gravity. The Court emphasized the severe societal menace posed by prohibited drugs, noting that subsequent legislation (Batas Pambansa Blg. 179) had significantly increased penalties for such possession, reflecting the State’s clear policy to treat these offenses with utmost seriousness. This legislative intent supports the judicial conclusion that probation would trivialize the crime. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and execution of the judgment was ordered.