G.R. No. 67301; January 29, 1990
MANUEL V. BALA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PAUL AYANG-ANG Probation Officer, Manila Probation Office No. 4, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Bala was convicted of falsification of a public document and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. His appeal was denied. Subsequently, he applied for and was granted probation by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch XX, for a period of one year starting August 11, 1982. The probation order required him to reside at an approved address and not to change his residence without prior written approval from his probation officer. During his probation, Bala verbally requested and received permission from his probation officer to transfer his residence from BF Homes to Las Piñas. His probation period was set to expire on August 10, 1983. However, before a final discharge order could be issued, the People, through an Assistant City Fiscal, filed a motion to revoke his probation in December 1983, alleging violations of its terms. Bala opposed, arguing the court had lost jurisdiction as his probation period had already terminated. He also contended that his change of residence transferred supervision to the RTC of Makati, pursuant to the Probation Law.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to revoke probation after the one-year probation period had lapsed but before the issuance of a final discharge order; and (2) whether the petitioner’s change of residence effectively transferred jurisdiction over his probation from the RTC of Manila to the RTC of Makati.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and revoked Bala’s probation. On the first issue, the Court held that probation is revocable at any time during the probation period and even after its term, provided that revocation occurs before the probationer’s final discharge by the court. Since no final discharge order had been issued for Bala, the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear the motion for revocation. The expiration of the probation period does not automatically terminate probation; it requires a judicial declaration of final discharge. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the change of residence did not divest the Manila RTC of jurisdiction. The petitioner’s verbal permission from the probation officer was insufficient, as the law and the probation order explicitly required prior written court approval for a change of residence. Furthermore, both the RTC of Manila and the RTC of Makati are branches of the same Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region. Jurisdiction is vested in the court as an institution, not in a specific branch or judge. Therefore, control and supervision remained with the RTC, and Branch XX in Manila properly exercised jurisdiction. In the interest of expediency, the Supreme Court revoked the probation outright due to the violations, instead of remanding the case.