Dear PAO,
My brother-in-law has an ongoing case for falsification because he allegedly made untruthful statements in relation to his application for registration as a voter. To be honest, his defense does not look very strong, and he feels that he may receive a judgment of conviction. Because of this, if that happens, he is already thinking of applying for probation. But he was allegedly discouraged by a court personnel from considering such a benefit since, supposedly, the acts for which he is being complained of in his ongoing case constitutes a violation of the Election Code. My brother-in-law has yet to talk to his pro bono lawyer about this matter because the latter is currently in the province attending to other cases. So, I just want to know if my brother-in-law is really not qualified to apply for probation on the basis mentioned by the court personnel. Please advise.
Romy
Dear Romy,
Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (BP Blg. 881), otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, specifically states that, “Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. xxx” (Emphasis supplied)
If we look closely at the provisions of BP Blg. 881, the act of knowingly making an untruthful statement in relation to any information that is required in the application for registration of voters is considered an election offense. (Section 261 (y) (2), Id)
However, it bears stressing that the fact that a person is being indicted for making untruthful statements in relation to his or her application for registration as a voter does not automatically mean that he or she is charged for an election offense. One still has to look into the details stated in the complaint or information, that is, whether the accused is being charged for an election offense or for violation/s of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or other penal laws.
In the situation which you have shared, you mentioned that the ongoing case of your brother-in-law is one for falsification, but not specifically for violation of BP Blg. 881. Corollary, if he is convicted of falsification under the RPC and sentenced to a probationable penalty, he does not appeal the unfavorable decision of the court, and he does not possess any disqualifications, then he may pursue applying for probation. Republic Act 10707, which amended certain provisions of Presidential Decree 968, specifically provides:
“SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: xxx
“The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the judgment. xxx
“Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. xxx
“SECTION 2. Section 9 of the same Decree, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
“a. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years.
“b. Convicted of any crime against the national security.
“c. Who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00).
“d. Who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree.
“e. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.”
On the other hand, if the Complaint or Information filed against your brother-in-law is one for violation of BP Blg. 881 and he is convicted thereof, then he is ineligible to apply for probation in consonance with Section 264 of BP Blg. 881.
The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, explained in the case of Jaime Chua Ching vs. Fernando Ching (GR 240843, June 3, 2019):
“Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to penitent qualified offenders who immediately admit their liability and thus renounce their right to appeal. In view of the acceptance of their fate and willingness to be reformed, the state affords them a chance to avoid the stigma of an incarceration record by making them undergo rehabilitation outside of prison. Some of the major purposes of the law are to help offenders develop themselves into law-abiding and self-respecting individuals, as well as assist them in their reintegration with the community. xxx
“Anent the reason proffered by the CA, the Court finds that while petitioner’s act of falsifying his voter’s registration with the Comelec by making it appear that he is a citizen of the Philippines, when in truth, he is a Chinese citizen who has yet to acquire Filipino citizenship, may be considered as an election offense under Section 261 (y) (2) of the OEC (Omnibus Election Code), petitioner’s conviction in this case does not involve this election offense. Rather, a plain reading of the Information, as well as the MeTC Decision dated August 14, 2015, would readily show that he was tried and subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of a Public Document Committed by a Private Individual, defined and penalized under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC. Hence, the CA erred in applying the disqualification for probation found under Section 264 of the OEC as he was not adjudged guilty of an election offense in this case.” (Emphasis supplied)
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
