[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

Probation Denied for Drug Offense

Eduardo Tolentino was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to 6 months to 2 years imprisonment. He applied for probation, which the probation officer recommended. However, the judge denied probation, finding it would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. Tolentino appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the denial of probation, finding the judge did not abuse discretion. The potential for reform is not the only factor in probation decisions, and the judge properly considered the interests of justice and public safety. Probation is a privilege, not a right, and the court's discretion is meant to benefit society.

Uploaded by

Wena Mae Cristobal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views1 page

Probation Denied for Drug Offense

Eduardo Tolentino was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to 6 months to 2 years imprisonment. He applied for probation, which the probation officer recommended. However, the judge denied probation, finding it would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. Tolentino appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the denial of probation, finding the judge did not abuse discretion. The potential for reform is not the only factor in probation decisions, and the judge properly considered the interests of justice and public safety. Probation is a privilege, not a right, and the court's discretion is meant to benefit society.

Uploaded by

Wena Mae Cristobal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TOLENTINO v.

ALCONCEL
G.R. No. L-63400. March 18, 1983

FACTS:

Eduardo Tolentino (petitioner) was charged before the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila with
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. He entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. However, Tolentino
changed his plea of not guilty to that of guilty to the lesser offense of possession of Indian Hemp
[marijuana], under Section 8 of Article II of the Act. The court allowed him to change his plea so
he was sentenced to imprisonment of six [6] months and one [1] day to two [2] years and four [4]
months, to pay a fine of P1,000.00, and to pay the costs with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

Tolentino applied for probation so Judge Alconcel directed the probation officer of the City of
Manila to conduct a post sentence investigation on said application and to file said report thereon
within 60 days. The probation officer recommended that Tolentino be placed on a two-year
probation claiming that he was already on his way to reformation and that a prison cell would
turn him into a hardened criminal. Notwithstanding the recommendation, Judge Alconcel denied
Tolentino’s application on the ground that it will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed. Tolentino moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Moreover, his "Ex-
Parte Motion for Hearing on the case for Probation and for Deferment of Execution of
Judgment" was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding that probation
will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

RULING:

No, the petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court declared that the potentiality of the
offender to reform is not the sole, much less the primordial factor, that should be considered in
the grant or denial of an application for probation. Equal regard to the demands of justice and
public interest must be observed. The conclusion of respondent judge that "probation will
depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed" is based principally on the admission by the
petitioner himself, as reflected in the report of the probation officer, that he was actually caught
in the act of selling marijuana cigarettes. Such admission renders a hearing on the application for
probation an unnecessary surplusage and an idle ceremony.

Moreover, probation is a mere privilege and its grant tests solely upon the discretion of the court.
This discretion is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized and society and only
incidentally for the benefit of the accused.(US v. Durken, 111.63 Supp. 570

You might also like