Fajardo vs. CA Case Digest
Facts:
In 1981, Fajardo was charged with violation of BP 22. At the time he committed the offense, PD No. 968 allows an accused who appeals his conviction to still apply for probation.
In 1988, the trial court convicted Fajardo of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penaltyPD No. 968, became effective (in 1986), providing that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Fajardo, however, still appealed his conviction.
When he lost the appeal, he filed motion for probation before the trial court contending that he was eligible for probation because at the time he committed the offense in 1981, an accused who had appealed his conviction was still qualified to apply for probation and that the law that barred an application for probation of an accused who had interposed an appeal was ex post facto in its application and hence, not applicable to him. The trial court denied Fajardo’s motion for probation and so did CA.
In 1988, the trial court convicted Fajardo of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penaltyPD No. 968, became effective (in 1986), providing that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Fajardo, however, still appealed his conviction.
When he lost the appeal, he filed motion for probation before the trial court contending that he was eligible for probation because at the time he committed the offense in 1981, an accused who had appealed his conviction was still qualified to apply for probation and that the law that barred an application for probation of an accused who had interposed an appeal was ex post facto in its application and hence, not applicable to him. The trial court denied Fajardo’s motion for probation and so did CA.
Issue:
Whether P.D. 1990 is an ex post facto law.
Held:
It is not ex post facto in its application. The law applies only to accused convicted after its effectivity. An ex post facto law is one that punishes an act as a crime which was innocent at the time of its commission. Presidential Decree No. 1990, like the Probation Law that it amends, is not penal in character. It may not be considered as an ex post facto law.
At the time of the commission of the offense charged--violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22--in 1981, petitioner could have appealed if convicted and still availed himself of probation. However, petitioner was convicted on May 26, 1988, and he appealed. At that time, petitioner no longer had the option to appeal and still apply for probation if unsuccessful in the appeal. Presidential Decree No. 1990 was then in full effect. Hence, he could no longer apply for probation since he had appealed. Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128508. February 1, 1999
At the time of the commission of the offense charged--violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22--in 1981, petitioner could have appealed if convicted and still availed himself of probation. However, petitioner was convicted on May 26, 1988, and he appealed. At that time, petitioner no longer had the option to appeal and still apply for probation if unsuccessful in the appeal. Presidential Decree No. 1990 was then in full effect. Hence, he could no longer apply for probation since he had appealed. Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128508. February 1, 1999
No comments