Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83210:57195&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:59:02+00:00

Document:
NEIL E. SUYAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CHIEF PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICER, DAGUPAN CITY, Respondent.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 27 March 2009, which affirmed the Orders dated 31 March 20062 and 26 June 20063 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. The RTC found that Neil E. Suyan (petitioner) had violated the conditions of his probation and thus, ordered that his probation be revoked. The instant petition likewise assails the Resolution dated 9 September 20094, which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision dated 27 March 2009.
On 27 October 1995, an Information was filed against petitioner, charging him with violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425.5 During arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The RTC thereafter proceeded with trial.
On 22 November 1995, petitioner was convicted of the crime, for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional and to pay the costs. On even date, he filed his application for probation.
While on probation, petitioner was arrested on two occasions, more specifically on 2 September and 20 October 19997 for violating Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425. Two separate Informations were filed against him, both of which were filed with the RTC of Dagupan City. One of these cases was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-03073-D before Branch 43 (Branch 43 case), and the other case as Criminal Case No. 99-03129-D before Branch 41.
No fact-finding investigation of the alleged violations was conducted by the Probation Officer.
The Probation Office should have reported to respondent court the result of said investigation, if any, upon its completion.
There was no Violation Report under P.A. Form No. 8, the contents of which are enumerated under Section 38 of the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures.
No warrant of arrest was issued by respondent court after considering the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations based on the report, if any.
The petitioner should have been brought to respondent court for a hearing of the violations charged, during which petitioner – with the right to counsel – should have been informed of the violations charged and allowed to adduce evidence in his favor.
The CA ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings, for the purpose of affording petitioner his right to due process pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 968, and the Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures.
At the outset of his probation period, probationer showed manifested negative attitude by incurring absences and not attending rehabilitation activities despite constant follow-up by his supervising officers. He continued with his illegal drug activities despite counselling and warning from this Office.
Obviously, probationer has failed to recognize the value of freedom and second chance accorded him by the Honorable Court, his conduct and attitude bespeaks of his deviant character, hence he is unworthy to continuously enjoy the privilege of probation.
With regard to the specific grounds for revocation, petitioner claimed that the evidence adduced against him did not refer to the grounds cited in the Motion to Revoke, but instead, the evidence referred to alleged violations of Condition Nos. 3, 9 and 10 of the Probation Order.
The CA denied his appeal. With regard to the procedural issues discussed in the assailed Decision, it ruled that petitioner was afforded due process. A full-blown trial was conducted precisely to allow him to refute the allegations made in the Motion to Revoke. It held further that petitioner wasted this opportunity when, instead of rebutting the allegations mentioned in the Violation Report, he merely questioned the absence of such a report when his probation was first revoked. It added that the procedural infirmities in the Motion to Revoke were cured when the RTC conducted a hearing in accordance with the directive laid down in the First CA Case.
With regard to the substantive issue of revocation, the CA ruled that, for having been apprehended twice for the commission of two offenses similar in nature, petitioner violated one of the conditions prescribed in the Probation Order. He even admitted to having served out his sentence for those offenses.
Aggrieved yet again, petitioner filed an appeal with this Court. On procedural grounds, he alleges that there was no fact-finding investigation of the alleged violations conducted by the probation officer, and thus no results were furnished him. Likewise, no warrant of arrest was issued by the RTC. Neither was he afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence in his favor with the assistance of counsel.
On substantive grounds, petitioner alleges that he already showed repentance after his conviction. In his first case, he readily admitted his accountability by pleading guilty to the charge. Thus, he was convicted and he subsequently applied for probation. He further alleges that, of the two cases filed against him, one was ordered dismissed; he has already served his sentence for the other. Since then, no derogatory information has been received either by the probation office or the trial court. Petitioner points out that he has already reformed his ways and is thus entitled to the grace of law. He contends that the CA should have ordered him to resume his probation pursuant to the positivist theory adopted in our criminal justice system.
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether the probation was validly revoked.
We rule that the probation of petitioner was validly revoked.
On the procedural grounds, we do not subscribe to his contention that his right to due process was violated after the RTC had already conducted a full-blown trial on the Motion to Revoke, in compliance with the directive of the CA. Based on record, he had ample opportunity to refute the allegations contained in the Violation Report.
We adopt the ruling of the CA in that petitioner squandered his own opportunity when, instead of rebutting the allegations mentioned in the Violation Report, he merely questioned the absence of any such report when his probation was first revoked.
On substantive grounds, we believe that there was sufficient justification for the revocation of his probation.
Petitioner does not deny the fact that he has been convicted, and that he has served out his sentence for another offense while on probation. Consequently, his commission of another offense is a direct violation of Condition No. 9 of his Probation Order,33 and the effects are clearly outlined in Section 11 of the Probation Law.
Based on the foregoing, the CA was correct in revoking the probation of petitioner and ordering him to serve the penalty for the offense for which he was placed on probation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 27 March 2009 and Resolution dated 9 September 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 95426 are both AFFIRMED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Brion,* Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin per raffle dated 24 March 2014.
1Rollo, pp. 43-52; Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia, in CA-G.R. SP No. 95426.
4 Id. at 54-55; Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia, in CA-G.R. SP No. 95426.
Section 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription.
17 Id. at 95, 97.
18 Id. at 106; Order dated 31 March 2006.
19 CA rollo, pp. 65-67.
31 Yuchengco v. Sandiganbayan, 479 SCRA 1 (2006).
32Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, 6 August 2012.
34 See Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 193237 & 193536, 9 October 2012.
35Soriano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123936, 4 March 1999.
36Tolentino v. Alconcel, 206 Phil. 79 (1983).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.