Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Crim - Baclayon V Mutia

    Uploaded by

    Pam Ramos
    Florentina L. Baclayon was convicted of serious oral defamation and sentenced to imprisonment. She applied for and was granted probation by the court, but one of the conditions of her probation was that she refrain from continuing her teaching profession. Baclayon argued this was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that while courts have broad discretion in setting probation conditions, they must be realistic, purposive, and aimed at rehabilitation. Prohibiting Baclayon from teaching was an unrealistic condition not in line with the goals of probation. The order granting probation is not a final judgment but a suspension of the sentence to allow rehabilitation under court supervision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crim - Baclayon V Mutia

    Uploaded by

    Pam Ramos
    2K views2 pages
    Florentina L. Baclayon was convicted of serious oral defamation and sentenced to imprisonment. She applied for and was granted probation by the court, but one of the conditions of her probation was that she refrain from continuing her teaching profession. Baclayon argued this was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that while courts have broad discretion in setting probation conditions, they must be realistic, purposive, and aimed at rehabilitation. Prohibiting Baclayon from teaching was an unrealistic condition not in line with the goals of probation. The order granting probation is not a final judgment but a suspension of the sentence to allow rehabilitation under court supervision.

    Original Description:

    Crim1 Case

    Original Title

    Crim_Baclayon v Mutia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Florentina L. Baclayon was convicted of serious oral defamation and sentenced to imprisonment. She applied for and was granted probation by the court, but one of the conditions of her probation was that she refrain from continuing her teaching profession. Baclayon argued this was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that while courts have broad discretion in setting probation conditions, they must be realistic, purposive, and aimed at rehabilitation. Prohibiting Baclayon from teaching was an unrealistic condition not in line with the goals of probation. The order granting probation is not a final judgment but a suspension of the sentence to allow rehabilitation under court supervision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Crim - Baclayon V Mutia

    Uploaded by

    Pam Ramos
    Florentina L. Baclayon was convicted of serious oral defamation and sentenced to imprisonment. She applied for and was granted probation by the court, but one of the conditions of her probation was that she refrain from continuing her teaching profession. Baclayon argued this was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that while courts have broad discretion in setting probation conditions, they must be realistic, purposive, and aimed at rehabilitation. Prohibiting Baclayon from teaching was an unrealistic condition not in line with the goals of probation. The order granting probation is not a final judgment but a suspension of the sentence to allow rehabilitation under court supervision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Florentina L. Baclayon vs Hon. Pacito G.

    Mutia, as Presiding Judge of the Municpal Court of


    Plaridel, Misamis Occidental and People of the Philippines
    [G.R. No. 59298. April 30, 1984]

    Facts:
     Petitioner, Florentina L. Baclayon was convicted of the crime of Serous Oral
    Defamation for having quarreled with and uttered insulting and defamatory words
    against Remedios Estillore, principal of the Plaridel Central School.
     The CA/IAC affirmed her conviction and increased the penalty imposed by respondent
    judge and sentenced her to 1 year 8 months 21 days of arresto mayor in its maximum
    period to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional in its minimum period.
     The sentence was promulgated on September 9, 1981, and on the same date Baclayon
    applied for probation with respondent judge who referred the application to a
    Probation Officer. The Post-sentence Investigation Report favorably recommended the
    granting of petitioner’s probation for a period of 3 years.
     On Dec 21, 1981, respondent Judge issued an order granting Baclayon’s probation by
    modified the Probation Officer’s recommendation by increasing the period of
    probation to 5 years and imposed some condition.
     One of the condition was, “to refrain from continuing her teaching profession,” to
    which Baclayon contends; alleging grave abut of discretion in the imposition of the said
    condition. She submits that said condition is not only detrimental and prejudicial to her
    rights but is also not in accordance with the purposes, objective and benefits of the
    probation law and prays that said condition be deleted from the order granting her
    probation.

    ISSUE:
    W/N the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion in giving the assailed condition?

    Held:
    YES.

    The enumeration of conditions contained in Section 10 of the Probation Law is not


    inclusive. Probation statutes are liberal in character and enable courts to designate practically
    any term it chooses as long as the probationers constitutional rights are not jeopardized. There
    are innumerable conditions which may be relevant to the rehabilitation of the probationer
    when viewed in their specific individual context. 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 trial courts to stipulate instead
    unrealistic terms.
    An order placing defendant on “probation” is not a “sentence” but is rather in effect a
    suspension of the imposition of sentence. It is not a final judgment but is rather an
    “interlocutory judgment” in the nature of a conditional order placing the convicted defendant
    under the supervision of the court for his reformation, to be followed by a final judgment of
    discharge, if the conditions of the probation are complied with, or by a final judgment of
    sentence if the conditions are violated.

    You might also like