People v. Padua
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Michael Padua was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling dangerous drugs. The information alleged that on June 6, 2003, in Pasig City, Padua, a minor then seventeen years old, conspired with Edgar Allan Ubalde to sell 4.86 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops to a police poseur-buyer. Padua initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew his plea and entered a guilty plea, leading to his conviction and a sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. 2. Procedural History: Following his conviction, Padua filed a petition for probation, asserting his status as a minor and first-time offender. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after receiving a favorable post-sentence investigation report, denied the petition. The RTC reasoned that Section 24 of R.A. 9165 explicitly disqualifies any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing from availing of probation, regardless of the penalty imposed. Padua's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed his petition, affirming the RTC's denial. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the denial of Padua's probation. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial, contending that it deprived him of his rights as a minor under Administrative Order No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law) and violated his rights under Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). Specifically, he questions the applicability of Section 24 of R.A. 9165 over provisions concerning juveniles and the denial of probation, which he believes should have been considered in light of his age and status as a first-time offender.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the petition for probation, depriving petitioner’s right as a minor under Administrative Order No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law), considering the prohibition on probation for drug trafficking under Rep. Act No. 9165. Whether or not the accused’s right to be released under recognizance has been violated or deprived in light of R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), specifically concerning the suspension of sentence. Whether or not Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law) has application in this case, considering the petitioner's age and the provisions regarding suspension of sentence.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 19, 2005 and the Resolution dated June 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the petition for probation: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Padua's petition for certiorari. For certiorari to prosper, the writ must be directed against a tribunal acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC, in denying Padua's petition for probation, did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; it merely applied the law and adhered to principles of statutory construction. Petitioner Padua was convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165, which pertains to selling dangerous drugs. Section 24 of the same Act explicitly states that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended. The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation, adhering to the plain-meaning rule (verba legis). On the issue of whether the accused’s right under Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was violated, specifically concerning the suspension of sentence: The Court held that Padua cannot argue that his rights under Rep. Act No. 9344 were violated because Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 9344 pertains to the suspension of sentence, not probation. Furthermore, the suspension of sentence under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could not be retroactively applied for petitioner's benefit because he had already reached 21 years of age or over by the time the case reached the Supreme Court. On the issue of whether Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law) has application: The Court held that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC does not have application because it pertains to the suspension of sentence, not probation. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that the court shall determine the child's disposition upon reaching 18 years of age, and the petitioner's age at the time of the Supreme Court's decision rendered the application of these provisions moot and academic. The law clearly distinguishes between drug traffickers/pushers, who are disqualified from probation, and drug dependents/users, who are considered victims and may be given a chance to reform.
Main Doctrine
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Republic Act No. 9165, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, as explicitly provided under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 9165. The distinction between drug traffickers/pushers and drug dependents/users under the law is clear, with the former being disqualified from probation while the latter may be given a chance to mend their ways.