GR L 76258; (May, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988
JUANITO S. AMANDY, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH LVI, LUCENA CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Juanito Amandy was charged with violating Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act for possessing 1.6 grams of marijuana. He initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew it and substituted a plea of guilty, reserving the right to prove the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty and non-habitual drunkenness. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and, appreciating the mitigating circumstances, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of imprisonment and a fine.
Amandy subsequently filed an application for probation, which the trial court denied. The denial was based on Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law (P.D. 968) by excluding from its benefits those “sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years.” The trial court reasoned that Amandy’s sentence exceeded six years, thus disqualifying him from probation. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent trial court committed reversible error in denying the petitioner’s application for probation on the ground that his sentence of six years and one day disqualifies him under P.D. No. 1990.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court’s orders. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the amendatory laws governing probation eligibility. The original Probation Law (P.D. 968) disqualified persons sentenced to a maximum term of more than six years. This was amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 76, which changed the disqualification to a maximum term of more than six years and one day. Subsequently, P.D. No. 1990 was promulgated, reverting to the original formulation and again disqualifying those sentenced to more than six years.
The Court held that P.D. No. 1990, being the later issuance, prevails over B.P. Blg. 76. The petitioner’s sentence of six years and one day falls within the disqualifying clause of “more than six years” under P.D. No. 1990. The omission of “and one day” in P.D. No. 1990 was deliberate, as it precisely marks the dividing line between correctional and afflictive penalties, reflecting a policy to exclude more serious offenses from probation. The Court further emphasized that the gravity of drug offenses, as underscored by increased penalties, supports this legislative policy. Probation is a privilege, not a right, and its grant is discretionary, considering both the offender’s rehabilitation and the demands of public interest and justice.