Fajardo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Daniel G. Fajardo was convicted of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Iloilo City, and sentenced to eight (8) months imprisonment. The offense was committed in 1981. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision on February 27, 1990. The Supreme Court denied a petition for review on certiorari on August 20, 1990. Upon remand, petitioner filed a motion for probation on June 2, 1995, arguing eligibility based on the law at the time of the offense and that the subsequent amendment barring appeals from probation was ex post facto. The trial court denied the motion on January 5, 1996. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied due course on November 12, 1996. Hence, the present appeal. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to annul the denial of his probation application, contending that Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law, is void and ex post facto.
Issue(s)
Whether Presidential Decree No. 1990 is valid. Whether Presidential Decree No. 1990 is ex post facto in its application to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is eligible for probation despite having appealed his conviction.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals denying due course to the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1990: The Court held that President Ferdinand E. Marcos was vested with legislative powers concurrently with the Batasan Pambansa at the time of the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1990. Therefore, the decree is valid. The Court noted that while enacted on October 5, 1985, its publication in the Official Gazette was on December 30, 1985, making it effective fifteen days after July 1, 1986, when the issue was released for circulation, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. This means PD 1990 became effective on July 16, 1986. On whether Presidential Decree No. 1990 is ex post facto: The Court ruled that Presidential Decree No. 1990 is not ex post facto. An ex post facto law punishes an act that was innocent when committed. PD 1990, like the Probation Law it amends, is not penal in character. It merely provides for the conditions under which probation may be granted. The law applies only to accused convicted after its effectivity, and it does not make an act criminal that was not so at the time of its commission. On the petitioner's eligibility for probation: The Court found that while the petitioner could have availed of probation if convicted and appealed at the time of the offense in 1981, he was convicted on May 26, 1988. By this time, Presidential Decree No. 1990 was already in full effect. This decree explicitly states that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction." Since the petitioner had perfected an appeal from his conviction after PD 1990 became effective, he was no longer eligible for probation.
Main Doctrine
An accused who perfected an appeal from a judgment of conviction after the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 1990, which amended the Probation Law to disallow probation for those who have appealed, cannot avail of probation, as the law is not ex post facto in its application to them.