107.

Bala v Martinez January 29 1990

FACTS
Manuel Bala was found guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document (USA passport) by RTC
Manila. CA affirmed the decision, remanded it to the lower court for execution.
Bala applied for and granted probation. Probation is for 1 year from Aug 11, 1982 to Aug 10, 1983.
Sept 23, 1982: Bala asked his supervising probation officer for permission to transfer his residence
from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision in Las Pias specifically. The probation officer verbally
granted the request.
Aug 10, 1983: the order of final discharge could not be issued because the probation officer had not yet
submitted his final report on the conduct of his charge.
April 30, 1983: RTC Manila found Bala guilty again for falsification of public and/or official documents
(U.S. Passports). This judgment has become final.
Dec 8, 1983: People of the PH, through Asst. City Fiscal Jose D. Cajucom of Manila, filed a motion to
revoke the probation of Bala before RTC of Manila for violating the terms and conditions of his
probation.
Basa filed a motion to dismiss. RTC Manila denied the request, hence a petition for certiorari and
prohibition was filed by Basa before the SC.
P's Arguments:
RTC Manila has no jurisdiction as his probation period had already expired.
His change of residence automatically transferred the venue of the case from the RTC of Manila to the
Executive. Judge, of the RTC of Makati which latter court include under its jurisdiction the Municipality of Las
Pias the probationer's place of residence.
OSG's Argument:
RTC Manila has not yet heard and received evidence, much less acted on the on the issue of the timeliness to
revoke the probation. Petition is premature.
WON probation is revocable before the final discharge of the probationer by the court
Held: Yes
Sec 16 of PD 968 (PD 1990 is not applicable as it went effect only on Jan 15, 1985 and is also prejudicial to the
accused Basa) is clear on this score:
See. 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon
finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated.
Thus, the expiration of the probation period alone does not automatically terminate probation. Nowhere is
the ipso facto termination of probation found in the provisions of the probation law. Probation is not
coterminous with its period. There must first be issued by the court of an order of final discharge based on the
report and recommendation of the probation officer. Only from such issuance can the case of the probationer
be deemed terminated.
WON there is a violation of the terms and conditions of Bala's probation that warrants its revocation
Held: Yes
He continued in his wayward ways as evidenced by his conviction again for falsifying public/official
documents. He failed to comply with the conditions of this probation, namely:
To be gainfully employed and be a productive member of society;
To cooperate fully with his program of supervision and rehabilitation that will be prescribed by the
Probation Officer.

Purpose of granting probation: to give a person a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate himself as a
productive, law abiding, and socially responsible member of society.
He also transferred residence without prior written approval. Section 10 of PD 968 categorically decrees that
the probationer must:
(j) reside at premises approved by it (court) and not to change his residence without its prior written
approval;
WON his transfer of residence automatically transferred jurisdiction over his probation from the
Manila Regional Trial Court to the same court in his new address.
Held: No.
Manila RTC has jurisdiction over his criminal case from which the probation case originated, hence, it should
not be deprived of its jurisdiction over the probation case.
DECISION: the Petition is DISMISSED and the probation of the petitioner is hereby REVOKED.
NOTE:
There is no deduction of the one year probation period from the penalty of one year and one day to three
years, six months, and twenty-one days of imprisonment imposed on Bala because an order placing him on
"probation" is not a "sentence," but is in effect a suspension of the imposition of the sentence.