ASG Law

Tag: Ex Post Facto Law

  • Probation After Appeal: Understanding Philippine Law on Post-Conviction Remedies

    When Appealing a Conviction Forfeits Your Right to Probation in the Philippines

    n

    TLDR: In the Philippines, if you appeal your criminal conviction, you generally lose the opportunity to apply for probation. This is due to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law to disqualify those who appeal their convictions from seeking probation. The Supreme Court case of Fajardo v. Court of Appeals clarifies this rule, emphasizing that the law in effect at the time of conviction determines probation eligibility, not the law at the time of the offense.

    nn

    G.R. No. 128508, February 01, 1999

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine being convicted of a crime and facing jail time. Probation offers a chance to serve your sentence outside of prison, under supervision, allowing you to maintain your job and family life. But what happens if you believe you were wrongly convicted and decide to appeal? In the Philippines, this decision carries significant consequences regarding probation, as highlighted in the case of Daniel G. Fajardo v. Court of Appeals. This case underscores a critical aspect of Philippine criminal procedure: appealing your conviction typically bars you from accessing probation.

    nn

    Daniel G. Fajardo was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. After his conviction in 1988, he appealed. Years later, when his appeal failed, he sought probation, arguing that at the time he committed the offense in 1981, appealing a conviction did not disqualify one from probation. The central legal question became: Can Fajardo still apply for probation despite having appealed his conviction, considering the amendments to the Probation Law introduced by Presidential Decree No. 1990?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: PROBATION AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1990

    n

    Probation in the Philippines is governed by Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as the Probation Law of 1976. Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. It’s a privilege, not a right, intended to give deserving offenders a second chance at rehabilitation outside of prison walls.

    nn

    Originally, under P.D. No. 968, there was ambiguity regarding whether appealing a conviction would preclude probation. However, this changed with the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 1990 on October 5, 1985. P.D. No. 1990 explicitly amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 to include a crucial disqualification. The amended section now reads:

    nn

    “SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation x x x. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.” (Emphasis supplied)

    nn

    This amendment clearly states that if a defendant appeals their conviction, they are no longer eligible to apply for probation. The rationale behind this amendment is to streamline the process and prevent the probation system from being used as a mere delaying tactic by those not genuinely seeking rehabilitation. The law intends probation to be for those who accept their conviction and are ready to reform, not for those still contesting their guilt through appeals.

    nn

    A key legal concept raised in Fajardo’s case was whether P.D. No. 1990 was an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one that retroactively punishes an act that was innocent when committed, or increases the penalty for a crime after its commission, or alters the legal rules of evidence to receive less, or different testimony, than was required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Crucially, ex post facto laws are prohibited under the Philippine Constitution. Fajardo argued that applying P.D. No. 1990 to him, since the offense was committed before its effectivity, would be an ex post facto application.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: FAJARDO’S FIGHT FOR PROBATION

    n

    The narrative of Fajardo v. Court of Appeals unfolds as follows:

    nn

      n

    1. 1981: Daniel Fajardo commits the offense of violating B.P. 22. At this time, the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968) is in effect, and the explicit disqualification for those who appeal their conviction is not yet present.

      2. n

    2. October 5, 1985: Presidential Decree No. 1990 is issued, amending P.D. No. 968 to explicitly bar probation for those who appeal their convictions.

      3. n

    3. July 16, 1986: P.D. No. 1990 becomes effective after its publication in the Official Gazette and the lapse of fifteen days.

      4. n

    4. May 26, 1988: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City convicts Fajardo of violating B.P. 22 and sentences him to eight months imprisonment.

      5. n

    5. 1988: Fajardo appeals his conviction to the Court of Appeals.

      6. n

    6. February 27, 1990: The Court of Appeals affirms Fajardo’s conviction.

      7. n

    7. August 20, 1990: The Supreme Court denies Fajardo’s petition for review, upholding the conviction.

      8. n

    8. June 2, 1995: After the case is remanded to the RTC, Fajardo files a motion for probation. He argues that he should be eligible because when he committed the offense in 1981, appealing did not disqualify probation, and applying P.D. No. 1990 to him would be ex post facto.

      9. n

    9. January 5, 1996: The RTC denies Fajardo’s motion for probation, citing P.D. No. 1990.

      10. n

    10. July 29, 1996: Fajardo petitions the Court of Appeals via certiorari, challenging the RTC’s denial of probation.

      11. n

    11. November 12, 1996: The Court of Appeals denies Fajardo’s petition.

      12. n

    12. Supreme Court Decision (February 1, 1999): The Supreme Court denies Fajardo’s appeal and affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision.

      13. n

    nn

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Pardo, firmly rejected Fajardo’s arguments. The Court stated:

    nn

    “At issue in this case is whether petitioner could qualify to apply for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 since he had appealed from his conviction in 1988, after Presidential Decree No. 1990 amending Presidential Decree No. 968, became effective in 1986, providing that

  • Retroactive Application of Penal Laws: When Does a Lower Penalty Apply to Past Crimes?

    Lower Penalty, Retroactive Justice: Understanding Ex Post Facto Laws in the Philippines

    TLDR; This case clarifies how and when a new law with a lighter penalty should be applied to crimes committed before the law was enacted. It emphasizes the principle of retroactivity for penal laws favorable to the accused, ensuring fairer outcomes in the Philippine justice system. Individuals facing criminal charges should understand that changes in the law can impact their sentences, especially regarding penalties.

    G.R. No. 95523, March 26, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine being sentenced under a law, only to have a new law passed that significantly reduces the penalty for your crime. Is the court bound by the old, harsher sentence, or can you benefit from the more lenient, new law? This scenario highlights the crucial legal principle of retroactivity of penal laws in the Philippines. The case of Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines squarely addresses this issue, providing a clear precedent on how and when a reduced penalty should be applied retroactively. At the heart of this case is the question of fairness and the evolving nature of justice, particularly when legislative changes favor those already convicted.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: NAVIGATING EX POST FACTO LAWS AND RETROACTIVITY

    The Philippine legal system, like many others, operates under the principle that laws generally apply prospectively, meaning they govern future actions, not past ones. However, an exception exists for penal laws that favor the accused. This exception is rooted in the concept of ex post facto laws, which are generally prohibited by the Constitution. An ex post facto law is one that:

    • Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law, which was innocent when done, and punishes such act.
    • Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
    • Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed.
    • Alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
    • Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful.
    • Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the former rule of evidence.

    While ex post facto laws are prohibited when they are disadvantageous to the accused, the principle of retroactivity comes into play when a new penal law is favorable to the accused. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states this principle:

    “Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the State.
    x x x x
    Any penal law shall have retroactive effect insofar as it favors the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, although at the time of the passage of such law final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving sentence.”

    This provision mandates that if a new law reduces the penalty for a crime, this reduced penalty should retroactively benefit those already convicted and serving sentences, provided they are not habitual criminals. This principle ensures that the punishment aligns with the current legislative view of the gravity of the offense and promotes fairness and humane treatment within the justice system.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: GONZALES V. COURT OF APPEALS

    The story of Reynaldo Gonzales begins with his conviction on October 28, 1988, for illegal possession of a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to a hefty penalty: 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months of Reclusion Temporal. Gonzales appealed to the Court of Appeals, but his conviction was affirmed on July 12, 1990. Undeterred, he elevated his case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, filed on November 13, 1990.

    While Gonzales’s case was pending before the Supreme Court, a significant legal development occurred: Republic Act No. 8294 (RA 8294) was enacted. This new law lowered the penalty for illegal possession of firearms. This legislative change became the crux of Gonzales’s continuing legal battle.

    On August 18, 1997, the Supreme Court rendered its initial decision. Acknowledging RA 8294, the Court affirmed Gonzales’s conviction but modified the penalty to a significantly lighter sentence of “four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.” Crucially, the Court also noted that Gonzales had already served nine years, nine months, and twenty-three days, exceeding even the maximum of the new, reduced penalty. Based on this, the Court initially ordered his immediate release.

    However, this was not the end of the story. An administrative officer from the Bureau of Corrections brought to the Court’s attention a discrepancy in the recorded detention period. Official records indicated that Gonzales had only served one month and twelve days of preventive suspension. It turned out that after his initial conviction and the forfeiture of his bail bond, Gonzales could not be located until his arrest on September 16, 1993. He was only committed to the Bureau of Corrections on July 4, 1997.

    Faced with this new information, the Supreme Court had to revisit its decision. The Court recognized its error in calculating Gonzales’s served time. Consequently, on March 26, 1998, the Court issued a Resolution modifying its earlier decision. The dispositive portion was amended to:

    “WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction by the lower court of simple illegal possession of firearm is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty is reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.”

    And crucially:

    “Since it appears that petitioner has not yet fully served the indeterminate penalty imposed above for his offense, as well as the subsidiary penalty for the unpaid fine, the order for his immediate release dated August 27, 1997 is hereby RECALLED.”

    The Supreme Court, in its Resolution, did not deviate from the principle of retroactivity. It still applied the reduced penalty under RA 8294. The modification was solely due to the corrected information regarding Gonzales’s actual time served. The core legal principle remained intact: penal laws favorable to the accused are applied retroactively.

    Key quote from the Resolution: “…we resolved to MODIFY the dispositive portion of the decision… Since it appears that petitioner has not yet fully served the indeterminate penalty imposed above for his offense… the order for his immediate release dated August 27, 1997 is hereby RECALLED“

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

    The Gonzales case serves as a powerful illustration of the retroactive application of favorable penal laws in the Philippines. It underscores several critical points for individuals and legal practitioners alike:

    • Benefit of Leniency: If a new law reduces the penalty for a crime you have been convicted of, you are entitled to benefit from that reduced penalty, even if your conviction was final before the new law took effect.
    • Importance of Legal Updates: It is crucial to stay informed about changes in penal laws. What might have been a severe sentence yesterday could be significantly lighter today due to legislative amendments.
    • Proactive Legal Action: If a favorable penal law is enacted after your conviction, you should proactively seek legal counsel to explore how this new law can be applied to your case. This might involve filing a motion for modification of sentence.
    • Accurate Record Keeping: This case highlights the importance of accurate detention records. Discrepancies can lead to errors in calculating time served and potentially delay or wrongly grant release.

    Key Lessons:

    • Favorable Penal Laws are Retroactive: Always remember that penal laws that reduce penalties generally apply retroactively in the Philippines.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer if you believe a new law could benefit your existing criminal case or sentence.
    • Verify Detention Records: Ensure the accuracy of detention records to avoid discrepancies in sentence calculation.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What does “retroactive application of penal laws” mean?

    A: It means that a new penal law can apply to crimes committed before the law was passed. In the Philippines, this is particularly true when the new law is favorable to the accused, such as by reducing the penalty for a crime.

    Q: Does this mean I can get out of jail if a new law reduces my sentence?

    A: Not necessarily automatically. You may need to file a motion in court to have your sentence modified in accordance with the new law. However, if you have already served time exceeding the new maximum penalty, as initially thought in Gonzales’s case, you should be released.

    Q: What if the new law increases the penalty? Can that be applied to past crimes?

    A: No. Laws that increase penalties or are disadvantageous to the accused cannot be applied retroactively because of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    Q: Who is considered a “habitual criminal” and excluded from this retroactive benefit?

    A: A habitual criminal is generally defined under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code as someone who, within a period of ten years from the date of release from prison or last conviction of certain crimes, is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of specific felonies. The specifics are detailed and complex within the Revised Penal Code.

    Q: What is RA 8294 and how did it affect this case?

    A: RA 8294 is Republic Act No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, and reduced the penalties for illegal possession of firearms. In Gonzales’s case, it was RA 8294 that provided the basis for reducing his original sentence.

    Q: Where can I find out about changes in Philippine penal laws?

    A: Official sources like the Official Gazette of the Philippines and websites of the Senate and House of Representatives publish new laws. Legal professionals and law firms also provide updates and analyses of legal changes.

    Q: If I think a new law might apply to my case, what should I do?

    A: Immediately consult with a lawyer. They can assess your situation, advise you on your rights, and take the necessary legal steps to seek a modification of your sentence if applicable.

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Litigation and Appeals. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.