ALICIA V. CABATINGAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Cabatingan versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Alicia Cabatingan against the Sandiganbayan. She asks the Supreme Court to set aside two resolutions of the anti-graft court that denied her application for probation, and to grant her provisional liberty under her original bail bond while her case is pending. The case matters because it fixes the standard a trial court must follow before it rules on an application for probation: the court must decide on the basis of all relevant information, not on the probation officer's report alone, and it must give the applicant a real opportunity to be heard and to controvert that report. It is, at bottom, a due process case dressed in the language of the Probation Law.

Procedural History

Cabatingan was convicted by the Sandiganbayan upon her plea of guilty to malversation. She then filed an application for probation. The Sandiganbayan denied the application in a resolution dated July 24, 1980, and denied her motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated October 10, 1980. She came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General, asked to comment, agreed that the Sandiganbayan had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the application without giving her an adequate hearing, and recommended that the records be remanded for further hearings and that she be released in the meantime under her original bail.

Facts

Cabatingan was a government employee of Mandaue City. She was charged with malversation. The original information alleged a shortage of 18,642 pesos and 30 centavos. On April 17, 1980, the Tanodbayan amended the information after reassessing the evidence, and the amount was reduced to 6,000 pesos. On that same day, Cabatingan re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the amended information. She immediately restituted upon demand the amount she had malversed.

She then applied for probation. The probation officer submitted a post-sentence investigation report recommending disapproval on two grounds: that there was an undue risk she would commit another crime during probation, and that probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. The first ground rested on a claim that she and her husband operated an illegal jai-alai betting station known as masiao, and that she faced another malversation charge involving 12,350 pesos and 40 centavos before the Tanodbayan. The second rested on a claim that she had been telling her co-employees she was already on probation when her application had not yet been acted upon.

Cabatingan disputed these reports with documentary evidence. Responsible citizens of Mandaue City, including the parish priest, the president of the Association of Barangay Councils, the president of the Catholic Women's League, the former city auditor, and the former city treasurer, attested to her character and contradicted the gambling claim. She also showed that the supposed additional shortage had already been included in the Tanodbayan's reassessment and in the amount she had restituted. The Sandiganbayan nonetheless denied her application, relying mainly on the probation officer's report and a supplemental report that was never furnished to her.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for probation without giving the applicant an adequate opportunity to controvert the post-sentence investigation report.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in relying solely on the probation officer's report instead of making its own determination under the Probation Law.
• Whether or not the applicant is entitled to provisional liberty under her original bail bond pending resolution of her case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree Number 968, the Probation Law, provides:

In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall consider all information relative to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender and available institutional and community resources.

This provision is the measure of the court's duty: it must consider all information, which means it cannot simply adopt the probation officer's recommendation without independent evaluation and without giving the applicant a chance to be heard.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan did commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner was not afforded fully her right to due process. Although a hearing in chambers was held on her motion for reconsideration, that hearing did not involve the reception of the evidence upon which the decision was eventually predicated. The supplemental report ordered by the court was never furnished to her, and she was never given a chance to inspect it, much less to cross-examine the witnesses against her.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan appeared to have wholly relied on the probation report and did not make its own determination as to whether probation would serve the ends of justice and the best interest of the public and the applicant. The report was mostly hearsay and was controverted by prominent citizens of Mandaue City. The term undue risk must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the law, and the record was not persuasive that such risk existed. A pending preliminary investigation does not prove guilt of the charge under investigation. Neither can the finding that probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense rest simply on an assertion that concerned citizens opposed probation, especially when that assertion is disputed.

On the third issue, the Court granted provisional liberty, ordering the petitioner's immediate release under her original bail pending the further hearings.

Doctrine

Probation is not a matter of grace to be withheld on the strength of a report alone. Under Section 8 of the Probation Law, the court must consider all information relative to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender and available institutional and community resources. The court must make its own determination, and it must afford the applicant due process: notice of the report, an opportunity to controvert it, and a chance to be heard on the evidence upon which the ruling will rest. A probation officer's report that is largely hearsay and is contradicted by responsible members of the community cannot by itself supply the factual basis for denial.

Disposition

The case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan, which was ordered to conduct further hearings on the application for probation so as to afford the applicant full opportunity to dispute the probation officer's report and prove her entitlement to probation, and in the meantime the petitioner was ordered immediately released provisionally under her original bail.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the court must consider all information relative to the offender, and it must hear the applicant before denying probation. Examiners use this case to test due process in probation proceedings and the limits of a probation officer's report as a basis for judicial action.