GR 128508; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128508 February 1, 1999
DANIEL G. FAJARDO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FLORENTINO P. PEDRONIO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Iloilo City; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and STATION COMMANDER OF ILOILO CITY, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Daniel Fajardo was convicted for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 by the Regional Trial Court on May 26, 1988, and sentenced to eight months imprisonment. He appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on February 27, 1990, and the Supreme Court denied his petition for review on certiorari on August 20, 1990. Upon remand of the case records to the trial court in 1995, Fajardo filed a motion for probation.
He contended he remained eligible for probation because, at the time he committed the offense in 1981, the Probation Law (Presidential Decree No. 968) allowed an application for probation even if an accused had appealed his conviction. He argued that Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law in 1985 to disqualify an accused who has perfected an appeal, could not be applied to him as it would be an ex post facto law. The trial court denied his motion, and the Court of Appeals subsequently denied his petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Daniel Fajardo is qualified to apply for probation after having appealed his conviction, considering the amendment introduced by Presidential Decree No. 1990.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that petitioner was no longer eligible for probation. The Court upheld the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law to bar an application for probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The Court rejected the argument that the decree was an invalid exercise of legislative power, noting that President Marcos retained concurrent legislative powers with the Batasan Pambansa at the time of its issuance.
Crucially, the Court ruled that P.D. No. 1990 became effective on July 16, 1986, following its publication. The law is not penal but remedial in character; therefore, its application is not ex post facto. An ex post facto law pertains to the criminality of an act, not to procedural rules governing the grant of probation. The determinative point is the date of conviction, not the commission of the offense. Since Fajardo was convicted on May 26, 1988, long after P.D. No. 1990 took effect, and he chose to appeal, he forfeited his right to apply for probation. The law in force at the time of his conviction expressly prohibited a convicted person who appeals from later availing of probation.