FAJARDO

FACTS: 1981 – commission of the offense violating Batas Pambansa No. 22, or the “Anti-Bouncing Check

Law” May 26, 1988 – Regional Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to 8 months

imprisonment and to pay costs for violating the afore-mentioned law 1988 – the petitioner appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals February 27, 1990 – Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC August 20, 1990 – Petition for review on certiorari of the conviction was denied by the Supreme

Court June 2, 1995 – When the record was sent back to the lower court, the petitioner filed for a

motion for probation contending that he was eligible for probation because at the time of the commission of the offense, an accused who had appealed his conviction was still qualified to apply for probation and that the law, Presidential Decree No. 1990, which prohibits an application for probation of an accused who petitioned for an appeal was ex post facto in its application. Hence, it is not applicable to him.

January 5, 1996 – Regional Trial Court denied the petitioner’s motion for probation. July 29, 1996 – the petitioner files for Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to reverse

the RTC’s denial for the motion for probation November 12, 1996 – Court of Appeals denies the petition Presidential Decree No. 1990 states that, “ no application for probation shall be entertained or

granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.” Petitioner asserts that P.D. No. 1990, issued on October 5, 1985, is null and void since at that

time, Batasan Pambansa was the sole functioning and exercising legislative power and that then Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos could no longer exercise legislative powers.

ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner could qualify to apply for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 since he had appealed from his conviction in 1988, after Presidential Decree No. 1990, amending PD No. 968, became effective in 1986.

HELD:No, the petitioner does not qualify. The assertion that P.D. No. 1990 is without merit. Pres. Marcos’ legislative powers co-existed with the Batasan Pambansa at that time.

Presidential Decree No. 1990 is valid and is not ex post facto in application because it was enacted on October 5, 1985 but became effective on July 16, 1985 after it was released for circulation on July 1, 1985, 15 days after its circulation in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. P.D. No. 1990, like the Probation Law, is not penal in character and may not be considered as an ex post facto law.

Petitioner was convicted on May 26, 1988, and he appealed. P.D. No. 1990 was already in full effect at that time. He could no longer apply for probation since he already appealed.

The Court denies the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Costs against petitioner.