GR No 59298

Florentina Baclayon vs Hon Pacito Mutia

GR No 59298         April 30, 1984

Facts:

          Baclayon was a school teacher who was convicted of the crime of Serious Oral Defamation by the then MTC Judge Pacito Mutia, for having quarreled with and uttered insulting and defamatory words against Remedios Estillore who was the principal of the Plaridel Central School. The said conviction was affirmed by the CA taking into account the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of her rank and age.

          As the sentence was promulgated on Spetember 9, 1981, Baclayon applied for probation within the same day with the respondent judge, who referred it to a Probation Officer. The Post-Sentence Investigation Report favorably recommended the granting of said application for probation. The respondent judge issued an order granting the same but modified the recommendation of Probation Officer by increasing probation period from 3 years to five years. The same also imposed the mandatory and discretionary conditions. However, among the conditions was one prohibiting Baclayon from continuing her teaching profession. Thus, Baclayon entered a plea for the deletion of such condition.

Issue:

          WON the discretionary probation provision by Judge Mutia is valid.

Held:

          No, the MTC Judge erred in including the provision in question.

       The conditions which trial courts may impose on a probationer may be general or mandatory and special or discretionary. Mandatory conditions are provided for in Section 10 of the Probation Law. Special conditions are those additional conditions listed in the same section with which the courts may additionally impose on the probationer towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of prison.

          

       However, the enumerations contained therein are not inclusive. Probation statutes are liberal in character and enable courts to designate practically any term it chooses as long as the constitutional rights of the probationer are not jeopardized.

It should, however, be borne in mind that the special or discretionary conditions of probation should be realistic, purposive, and geared to help the probationer develop into a law-abiding and self-respecting individual.

       

        Conditions should be interpreted with flexibility in their application and each case should be judged on its own merits—on the basis of the problems, needs and capacity of the probationer. The very liberality of the probation should not be made a tool by the trial courts to stipulate instead unrealistic terms.