GR 45047; (March, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45047 ; March 19, 1936
JOSE D. ZENAROSA, petitioner, vs. EULALIO GARCIA, Judge of First Instance of Camarines Norte, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose D. Zenarosa was convicted of abduction and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. Before serving his sentence, he filed a motion asking the respondent Judge to grant him probation under Act No. 4221 (the Probation Law). The respondent Judge denied the motion, citing lack of jurisdiction because the provincial board had not provided for a probation officer’s salary in Camarines Norte, and alternatively, that even if he had jurisdiction, the grounds in the motion were insufficient to justify probation. The petitioner then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to act on his motion.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for probation, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
RULING
No. The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The grant of probation under Act No. 4221 is discretionary upon the court, as indicated by the use of the word “may” in the law. The respondent Judge exercised this discretion by denying the motion on its merits, finding the grounds insufficient. The law does not require a hearing with the fiscal before denial, but only requires such a hearing before granting probation. The respondent Judge’s denial, based on his sound judgment, was a valid exercise of his discretionary power and not a refusal to perform a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus.
AI Generated by Armztrong.