GR No 123936

Ronald Soriano vs Court of Appeals

GR No 123936        March 4, 1999

Facts:

          Soriano was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, serious physical injuries, and damage to property. His application for probation was granted, and among the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court are that: 1) he shall meet his family responsibilities; 2) he shall devote himself to a specific employment and shall not change employment without prior notice to the supervising officer, or pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training; and 3) indemnify the heirs of the victim Daluyong.

          A month after, Assistant Prosecutor Fadera filed a motion to cancel the probation of Soriano due to his failure to satisfy his civil liability to the heirs of the victim, and as he also committed another crime which was pending at the time. The Zambales Parole and Probation Office filed a comment that recommended Soriano to be allowed to continue with his probation and be required instead to submit a program of payment for his civil liability. However, Soriano questioned the constitutionality of the condition for probation.

Issue:

          WON the revocation Soriano’s probation is lawful and proper.

Held:

          The Court held that the same was lawful and proper. Soriano’s refusal to comply with said orders cannot be anything but deliberate. He had notice of the orders, but up to the time being, he refused to comply with the same.

          Contrary to Soriano’s contention, the requirement is not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The payment of the civil liability was not made a condition precedent to probation. Satisfaction of his civil liability was not made a requirement before he could avail of probation but was a condition for his continued enjoyment of the same.

          The trial court could not have done away with imposing payment of civil liability as a condition for probation. This is not an arbitrary imposition but one required by law. It is a consequence of Soriano’s having been convicted of a crime, and he is bound to satisfy this obligation regardless of whether or not he is in probation.

        The conditions set forth were not whims of the trial court but are requirement laid down by the statute. They are among the conditions that the trial court is empowered to impose and the probationer is required to follow. Only by satisfying these conditions may the purposes of probation be fulfilled. These include promoting the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment, and providing opportunity for the reformation of the penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. Failure to comply will result in the revocation of the order granting probation, pursuant to Probation Law.