Lesson III:

The historical
Development of Probation
Description:
This lesson will introduce the students the following:

1. Historical Development of Probation

2. Basic differences between P.D. No. 968 and Act No. 4221
3. Forerunners of Probation
4. The probation law and its amendment

Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lesson, the students are expected to:

1. Understand, summarize and discuss the historical development of probation

particularly in England, United States and Philippines.
2. Name the personalities and recognized their contribution to the development of
probation.
3. Understand, digest and discuss the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of
People vs. Vera.
4. Differentiates P.D. 968 to Act no. 4221.
5. Identify and discus the forerunners of probation.
6. Understand, summarize and explain amendments to P.D. 968.
Jeanelle Velasco
Historical Development of Probation
in England and in United States
Introduction:
The concept of probation, from the Latin, probatio,"testing," has historical roots in the
practice of judicial reprieve.

In English common law, prior to the advent of democratic rule, the courts could
temporarily suspend the execution of a sentence to allow a criminal defendant to
appeal to the monarch for a pardon. Probation first developed in the United States
when John Augustus, a Boston cobbler, persuaded a judge in the Boston police court
in 1841 to give him custody of a convicted offender, a "drunkard," for a brief period
and then helped the man to appear rehabilitated by the time of sentencing.
Even earlier, the practice of suspending a sentence was used as
early as 1830 in Boston, Massachusetts, and became widespread in
U.S. courts, although there was no statutory provision for such a
practice.

At first, judges, most notably Peter Oxenbridge Thatcher of Boston,

used "release on recognizance" or bail and simply refrained from
taking any further action. In 1878 the mayor of Boston hired a former
police officer, the ironically named "Captain Savage," to become what
many recognize as the first official probation officer. By the mid-19th
century, however, many Federal Courts were using a judicial reprieve
to suspend sentence, and this posed a legal question.
In 1916, the United States Supreme Court, in the Killets Decision, held
that a Federal Judge (Killets) was without power to suspend a sentence
indefinitely. This decision led to the passing of the National Probation
Act of 1925, thereby, allowing courts to suspend the imposition of
incarceration and place an offender on probation. Probation developed
from the efforts of a philanthropist, John Augustus, who looked for
ways to rehabilitate the behavior of criminals.
Massachusetts developed the first state-wide probation system in 1880, and by
1920, 21 other states had followed suit. With the passage of the National Probation
Act on March 5, 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, the U.S. Federal
Probation Service was established. On the state level, pursuant to the Crime
Control and Consent Act of 1936, a group of states entered into an agreement
wherein they would supervise probationers and parolees who reside in each
other's jurisdictions on each other's behalf. Known as the Interstate Compact for
the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, this agreement was originally signed
by 25 states in 1937.

By 1951, all the states in the United States of America had a working probation
system and ratified the Interstate Compact Agreement. In 1959, the new states of
Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa ratified the act as well.
Historical Development of Probation
A. Historical Development of Probation in England

Early in the 19th century the English magistrates initiated experiments to

save young and inexperienced offenders from stigma of prison. They
made use of the latitude allowed then under the common law to bind over
defendants, who should be brought back for sentence if the conditions of
release were violated. The need for supervision and assistance to those so
released was met by assigning the young offender to the care and
guardianship of his parents or his employer with an occasional check on
his progress by the police.
 Who is Mathew Davenport Hill?

Mathew Davenport Hill is considered the father of

probation in England. He left an interesting account of
his experiments in the Birmingham court. He was in the
forefront of reforming juvenile offenders. He finds
persons who act as guardians of the juvenile offender.
Then at an unexpected period, the confidential officer
visits the guardian, makes inquiries and keeps notes of
information received.
Who is Mathew Davenport Hill?

He conducted his experiment in the Birmingham Court. Beginning in the early

years of 1481, he acted for and in behalf of juvenile offenders, when he
believes:
1. The individual is not fully corrupt
2. There was reasonable hope of reformation
3. When there could be found persons to act

As guardian they are kind enough to take charge of the young convict. In the
belief that there is better hope for reformation under such guardians than in
prison.
At unexpected period, confidential officers visits the guardians, make inquiries
and register facts. He was thus informed and records were kept.
B. Historical Development of Probation in United States
The first state to enact a real probation law in United States is Massachusetts.
The first practical demonstration of probation, first use of the term as court
service, and the enactment of the first probation law occurred in
Massachusetts.

Volunteer services evolved in Maryland. The prisoners Aid Association of

Maryland, organized in 1869, employed agents to visit the prison and assist
released prisoners and gradually they began to investigate cases and assist
offenders before the Baltimore courts. A 1894 law provided that any court in
the state might release on probation for “good conduct” a person convicted of
any offense not capital, if no previous conviction was proved against him, upon
his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, and during such
period as the court may direct to appear and received judgment when called
upon, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
Another state adopting a partial measure was Missouri with its
“parole of convicted person’s law of 1897.”

The second state to enact a real probation law. The Vermont like
Missouri and unlike Massachusetts provided for probation only
after suspension of the execution of sentence. The bills in both
states were supported by the state correctional agencies. Many
features of the Massachusetts law were incorporated, with
several innovations since followed elsewhere. Vermont was the
first to adopt a county plan.
The third state to enact a real probation law is Rhode Island. A complete state
administered probation system appeared first in Rhode Island. The Act of 1899
empowered the board of state charities and corrections to appoint a state
probation officer and additional probation officers, “one of whom at least shall
be a women,” to serve all courts in the state. The Act followed Massachusetts in
permitting the use of probation before the imposition of sentence and even
without conviction but the limitation of probation to less serious offenses was
an unfortunate departure from the laws of Massachusetts and Vermont.

Success of probation became known in other English speaking countries. Illinois

and Minnesota in 1899 Plan for children only. New Jersey and New York enacted
probation law in 1900. Finally, on March 4, 1925 the UNITED STATES FEDERAL
PROBATIONACT was enacted.
Aaron Chavez
John Augustus
Gov. Alexander H. Rice
President Calvin Coolidge
 Who is John Augustus?

John Augustus is the father of probation in the USA. He

is a Boston shoemaker, first to develop a sustained
service to promote temperance and to reclaim drunkards.
Although later he begun to take men and woman
charged with other crimes, then eventually children.

John Augustus
 Who is John Augustus?
John Augustus was born in 1785 at Woburn Massachusetts
and moved to Lexington Green and became a Cordwainer
or Bootmaker. He prospered and acquired large track of
land apart conveyed to Lexington Academy to erect a
school, which he became a trustee. In 1827 he moved to
Boston and set up a shop at Franklin Avenue near the
Courthouse. He began to visit courthouse because of his
membership with the Washington Total Abstinence Society,
formed in Boston in 1841 to promote temperance and to
reclaim drunkards. During the first year, he took only men
charge with drunkenness. Then men and women charge
with other offense and then children/ number of cases
increases each year
Method of Augustus
1. Provide bail for temporary suspension of punishment of sentence.
2. Then he sought counsel and assists his charges in finding homes, securing
employment and adjusting family difficulties.
3. At the end of probation he brought offender back to court-if no further
charges are found-judge imposes a nominal fine with cost if man is poor,
Augustus advance fine as a loan.
Augustus Experiment
- August 1841- Rugged drunk man
- 3 weeks -The drunkard was brought back to court where the judge cannot
recognize him. Imposes a fine of $ 3.76.
- Augustus died on June 21, 1859. And out of 2000 person whom he extended his
help, only 10 were ungrateful. And out of 1100 cases, only one case was
forfeited.
- Massachusetts became the 1st country to enact a probation law on April 21,
1878
Who is Gov. Alexander H. Rice?

He provided appointment and prescribed duties

for paid probation officers.
Who is President Calvin Coolidge?
The former governor of Massachusetts.
 Morris Pante
History of Probation Law in the Philippines
The adult probation law of 1976
Historical Development of Probation
C. Historical Development of Probation in the Philippines

A. The Adult Probation Law of 1935

The Philippine Legislature enacted the first probation of the Philippines
the first legislation was ACT No. 4221 enacted by the Philippine
legislature on August 07,1935.

ACT No. 4221 – This act created the Probation Ofiice under the
Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by the chief probation officer
appointed by the American Governor -General with the advice and
consent of the United State.
The act also granted probation to first -time offenders 18 years of age and
above and convicted of a certain crime.

However the law stayed in the statue for only two years . The act
subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on November
16, 1937 in the People of the Philippines vs. Vera.

Nota Bene:
Section 11 of Act No. 4221, the fatal provision of the act provided that “This act
shall apply only to those provinces in which the respective provincial
boardshave provided for the salary of probation officer at rates not lower
than those now provided for provincial fiscals."
The declaration of unconstitutionality of the probation Act of 1935 created a gap
in the criminal justice system in the Philippines. The Criminal Justice System is the
machinery which the society uses in the prevention and control of crimes. It
components is the police , the courts , the penal institutions the probation and the
parole systems the components are highly dependent upon one another. THE
FAILURE OF ONE CAN DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALL OTHER
WITHIN THE SYSTEM.

In order to heighten the awareness of interdisciplinary and cooperation among

the components of the criminal justice system as well as to improve judicial
process and to reduce the level of criminality , the national police commision
created an INTER DICIPLINARY COMMITTEE in 1974 to prepare a National
Crime Prevention Programs.
On july 24, 1976 a “NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE CRIMES” was
finalized and presented to the President of the Philippines. The strategy
proposed a two prolonged attack to reduce crime on the country namely:

1.To give emphasis on the prevention and control of high fear and economic
crimes by implementing a number of priorities of actions.

2.To improve the quality of the criminal justice system by facilitating

teamwork among its interdependent components.
The following priorities and action were recommended :

1.Improvements of the quality of the criminal justice system among its

interdependent components;
2.Improvement of the management and skills of law Enforcement;
3.Reducing the delays in the criminal justice processes.
4.Making corrections more attuned to its role of rehabilitating law offenders;
and
5.Increasing the community participation in crime prevention.

There were a number of projects recommended under each of these priorities of

action, among which was establishment of an adult PROBATION SYSTEM. It
was a priority action under (4).
 The rationale for recommending priority consideration to the establishment
of probation system is clearly apprent.

1.The penal system in the country is characterized by substandard treatment of

prisoners. To try to train lawbreakers to obey the law in a substandard system is self
defeating.
2.The detterent potentiality of the prisons is grossly exaggerated. No one has ever
proved that the threat of severe punishment actually deters crime.
3.Prison heighten the offenders weaknessess and erode their capacity for
responsibility and sociability.
4.The maintenance of penal institutions is costly on the part of the government. In
view of these considerations, an alternative to instutionalizatin for certain types of
offenders was proposed. Such proposal was subsequently translated into a law on
July 24, 1976 which is now known as the “Probation Law of 1976” or presidential
Decree No. 968.
 Who is Teodulo C. Natividad?

He is the father of probation in the Philippines. He

headed the committee (IDCCP) primarily tasked
with the drafting of the adult probation law.
A. The Adult Probation Law of 1976
It tooks a long time before another attempt was made with the introduction
then by Congressman Teodulo C. Natividad in collaboration with the former
Congressman Ramon D. Bagatsig, House Bill No. 393. The measure was
passed in the lower house and was pending in the senate when martial law
was proclaimed in 1972.

The Presidential Decree No. 968 established a probation system less costly
alternative to the imprisonment of the offender who are likely to respod to
individualized, community Based treatment program is the second legislation
that enforces a probation system in the country.
On Nov. 13 1974 , the Inter Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention (IDCCP)
was created to formulate a national crime prevention programs for the country.

NOTE: THE COMMITTEE PLACES EMPHASIS ON PRO-ACTION (CRIME

PREVENTION) RATHER THAN REACTION ( ACTION AFTER OCCURRENCE OF
THE CRIME).
Danna Kylla Medrano
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention
The Multi Sectoral Body
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention

(IDCCP)
The delegation's official report served as the turning point for
the IDCCP of the commission to formulate for a national crime
prevention program.
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention

(IDCCP)

Inter-Disciplinary Comittee on Crime Prevention was created on

November 13, 1974 by the National Police Commission as mandated
under section 4 of Republic Act No. 4864. Juan Ponce Enrile asked the
IDCCP to draft the adult probation decree. Inter- Disciplinary
Commitee is composed of authorities and representatives from rive
pillars of the criminal justice system.
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention

(IDCCP)

The Proposal was reviewed by a mixture of jurist, penologist policemen,

educators subsequently civic leaders, social and behavioral scientis,
media, men blue-collar and white-collar workers and housewives.
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention

(IDCCP)
Dr. Torsten Erickson, former United Nations Inter-Regional Adviser on
Crime Prevention Justice and Dr. A. Lamonth Smith, director for research
Program Planning and Elicit comments on the adoption of adult probation
system in the country. A survey was made to elicit comments on the
adoption of the adult probation system in the country. Favorable resulted
showed 87.1% in favor of the adoption, 7.1% apprehensive and 5.8% non-
committal. Thereafter. The draft was sent to the secretary of the
Department of the National Defense, secretary of the department of the
Justice and to the supreme court for review and endorsement of the
president.
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention

(IDCCP)

The final forum of the proposed institutionalized of adult probation in the

country was the First National Conference on Crime Control, which was
held at camp Aguinaldo from July 22 to July 24, 1976. It was on this historic
last day of the Conference that the Presidential Decree No. 968 and
thereby Transported the criminal justice system of the country to the
twentieth century. In the process, the president also appointed as the first
Probation Administration, NAPOLCOM Chairman, Teodolo C Natividad in a
concurrent capacity.
 The Multi-Sectoral Body

As advocated by the United Nations, the five-penal multi-sectoral body is

composed of experts from the various sectors and disciplines comprising
the five pillars of criminal justice system, namely: Police, Prosecution,
Court, Correction and Community Participation. The panel on community
participation has sub-panels on education, welfare, religion, barangay
health and economics.
The Multi-Sectoral Body

Under the leadership of Commissioner Teodulo C. Natividad the

IDCCP, after barely two months of work evolved a proposed
system of probation for adults based on evaluation of projects on
crime prevention and treatment of offenders in the country,
notably the Bacolod City experiment on social defense. This was
later incorporated as part of PD 968 which was signed into law by
pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos on July 24, 1976. Note: Jan 3, 1978-
affectively of the substantive provisions of PD 968.
Kimberly Larracas
Case Analysis of People Vs. Veyra
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VERA

(G.R. NO. L-45685, NOVEMBER 16 1937)

FACTS:

Cu-Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges by the trial court of Manila. He

filed a motion for reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were
denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court of United States for review,
which was also denied. The SC denied the petition subsequently filed by Cu-
Unjieng for a motion for new trial  and thereafter remanded the case to the
court of origin for execution of the judgement.
B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

FACTS:
CFI of Manila referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation
Office which recommended denial of the same. Later, 7th branch of CFI Manila
set the petition for hearing. The Fiscal filed an opposition to the granting of
probation to Cu Unjieng, alleging, among other things, that Act No. 4221,
assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the
Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article III of the
Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. The private prosecution
also filed a supplementary opposition, elaborating on the alleged
unconstitutionality on Act No. 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power
to the provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution).
B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Issue:

1.Whether or not the Act No. 4221 encroaches upon the pardoning power of
executive. 
2.Whether or not the Act No. 4221 constitute  on undue delegation of
legislative power.
3.Whether or not the Act No. 4221 denies the equal protection of the law.
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Ruling:
1. No. There is no encroaches upon the pardoning power of executive. act does not encroached in
any upon the powers of the executive as they have understood and practiced from the earliest
time;
The Court held that the Probation Act did not, by the force of any of its provinces, fix and impose
upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionary power. What
was granted was a "roving commission" which enabled the provincial boards to exercise arbitrary
discretion. By Section 11 of the Act, the legislature did seemingly on its own authority extend the
benefits of the Act to the provinces but in reality left the entire matter for the various provincial
boards to determine for themselves whether the Probation Law should apply to their provinces or
not at all. The applicability and application of the Act was entirely placed in the hands of the
provincial boards. If a provincial board did not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all it
had to do was to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer
without even stating the reason therefore.
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Ruling:
The plain language of Section 11 was not susceptible of any other interpretation. This was a virtual
surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.

2. Yes. There is undue delegation of legislative power.

SC conclude that section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of
legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason, unconstitutional and void.
The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: "This Act shall apply
only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a
probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation
officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the
Probation Office."
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Ruling:
The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves, whether the
Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The applicability and application of the
Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If the provincial board does
not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the
needed amount for the salary of a probation officer.

The clear policy of the law, as may be gleaned from a careful examination of the whole context, is
to make the application of the system dependent entirely upon the affirmative action of the
different provincial boards through appropriation of the salaries for probation officers at rates not
lower than those provided for provincial fiscals. Without such action on the part of the various
boards, no probation officers would be appointed by the Secretary of Justice to act in the
provinces.
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Ruling:
The Philippines is divided or subdivided into provinces and it needs no argument to show that if
not one of the provinces — and this is the actual situation now — appropriate the necessary fund
for the salary of a probation officer, probation under Act No. 4221 would be illusory. There can be
no probation without a probation officer. Neither can there be a probation officer without the
probation system.

3. Yes, it denies the equal protection of the law

The act was surrender of legislative power to the provincial board for its application was left to
their determination in providing for the salary appropriation , although there are no provision that
fix and impose any standards to guide in the exercise of provincial board’s discretionary power;
 B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

Ruling:

That the unwarranted delegation of Power under section11 of Act No. 4221
created a situation for discrimination and inequality to exits as one province
may appropriate then necessary funds for the salary of a probation officer
while another may refuse or fail to do so;

Hence it contravened the equal protection of the law clause for those persons
who may enjoy the benefits of Probation.
B. Case Analysis: People Vs. Vera

In more precise language, the high court assailed that it bluntly called a “roving
commission” that enable provincial boards to exercise arbitrary discretion so that
if a provincial board did not wish to have the Act applied in its provincial, all that
it had to do was to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of
probation officer, which construed as a virtual surrender of Legislative power to
the provincial boards.

It was considered class legislation. Under this law probation existed only in cities
and municipalities, which were given appropriation for, said purpose by
legislature.
 Arjay Acorda
Basic Difference between P.D 968 and the Probation Act of 1935
The Presidential Decree No. 968

Enacted on July 24, 1976 and started to operate on January 3, 1978

Signed into law by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
Basic Differences Between P.D.

968 and the Probation Act of 1935 (Act

4221)
 As to Applicability of the

probation law

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)
The Probation Law applies to all provinces The Probation Law applies only to provinces
and cities, uniformly and without and cities in which their respective
discrimination. provincial boardshave provided for the
salary of a probation officer.
The salary of the probation officer in each
province or city is provided for by law, no The salary of the probation officer is to the
longer subject to the discretion of the discretion of the respective provincial
respective provincial boards. boards.
 As to Applicability of the

probation law

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

The law expressly provides that "The The Probation Law divests the provincial
Provincial or City Probation Officer shall boards of the power to determine whether
receive an annual salary of at least or not salary of a probation officer in their
eighteen thousand four hundred pesos.” respective provinces would be
appropriated.
 As to the condition of

the probation order

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)
The conditions of Probation make it The imposition of the said conditions on the
MANDATORY for the Court to issue a probationer was merely DISCRETIONARY
probation order containing specific on the part of the Court issuing the
conditions for the probationer to fulfill. probation order. (Section 3)
(Section 10)
There is reparation or restitution by the
The reparation or restitution by the probationer to the aggrieved parties for
probationer to the aggrieved parties for actual damages or losses caused by his
actual damages or losses caused by his offense.
offense is DELETED.
 As to the period of

probation

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

It provides that "in all other cases, It provides that the period of probation
the probation period shall not exceed of a probationer found guilty of "any
6 years. (Section 14) other offense" did not exceed twice the
maximum time of imprisonment to which
The new law, therefore, provides for a he might be sentenced. (Section 7)
definite and shorter probation period.
As to the appealability of the order

granting or denying probation

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

The Law provides that an order Nowhere in the old Probation Law can
granting or denying probation shall there be found a provision to this
not be appealable. (Section 4) effect.
 As to the offenses not

covered

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of 1. Homicide
imprisonment of more than 6 years; 2. Treason
(b) convicted of any offense against the 3. Misprision of treason
security of the State; 4. Sedition
(c) who have previously been convicted by 5. Espionage
final judgment of an offense punished by 6. Conspiracy or proposal to commit
imprisonment of not less than one month treason
and one day and/or fine of not less than 7. Piracy
two hundred pesos; 8. Brigandage
 As to the offenses not

covered

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

(d) who have been once on probation 9. Arson

under the provisions of this Decree; 10.Robbery in band
11.Robbery with violence on persons
(e) who are already serving sentence at when it was found that they displayed
the time the substantive provisions of this a deadly weapon and
Decree became applicable... " (Section 9) 12.Corruption of minors." (Section 8)
 As to modification or revision of

the conditions of probation

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

The modification or revision of the

conditions of probation, Presidential It provided that "The Court MAY, at
Decree No. 968, Section 12 provides in any time, revise, modify or enlarge the
part, that "During the period of conditions or period of probation."
probation, the court may, UPON
APPLICATION of either the probationer
or the probation officer, revise or modify
the conditions or period of probation. .
 As to name of probation office

and its head

Presidential Decree 968 Act No. 4221

(Probation Law of 1976) (Probation Law of 1935)

Office - Probation Administration Office - Probation Office


Probation Administrator - the Chief Probation Officer - the Head
Executive Officer of the Probation of the Probation Office
Administration
 Pamela Joy Favorito
The Forerunners of Probation and
Section 1 and 2 of the Probation Law and its Amendment
IV. The Forerunners of Probation
1. Benefits of the Clergy
2. Judicial Reprieve
3. Recognizance or “Binding over for good behavior”
4. Transportation
The Forerunners of Probation

Benefits of the Clergy- earliest for softening of the brutal severity of

punishment. This was a compromise between the church and the king that, if
any member of the clergy was brought to trial before the king’s court, such
clergy could be claimed from the jurisdiction by the bishop or chaplain
representing him on the ground that the prisoner was subject to the authority
of the Ecclesiastical Court only. There was greater leniency in sentencing and
particularly escape from death penalty. Acquittal or guilt was established by a
Jury of Twelve Clerks.
The Forerunners of Probation

Judicial Reprieve- withdrawal of sentence for an internal of time whereby the

execution of the sentence is suspended either before or after judgment such as
when there is a favorable circumstance in the criminal’s character in order to
give him opportunity to apply to the King for either an absolute an or conditional
pardon. Early English courts began to grants reprieves to prisoners under
sentence of death on condition that they accept deportation to English
settlements in America.
The Forerunners of Probation

Recognizance or “Binding over for good behavior” – this is considered as the

direct ancestor of probation. This involves an obligation or promise sworn to
under court order by a person not yet convicted of crime he would keep the
peace and be of good behavior.
The Forerunners of Probation

Transportation- this was developed from an ancient practice of banishment and

flourished for more than two hundred years as a principal method of disposing
offenders. It served mainly as cheap source of supplying labor to the colonies of
England.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968
Presidential
Decree No. Section 1
1257 xxx
The prosecuting officer concerned
shall be notified by the court of NONE
the filling of the application for
probation and he may submit his
comment on such application
within ten days from receipt of the
notification.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

Presidential
Decree No. Section 2 Section 7
1257 xxx xxx
The court shall resolve the The court shall resolve the petition
application for probation not later for probation not later than five
than fifteen days after receipts of days after receipt of said report.
said report."

Charmaine Angelie Berania

Continuation of Probation Law and
its amendment Section 3 up to Executive No. 292
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968
Section 3
Presidential xxx
In the hearing, which shall be
Decree No. summary in nature, the probationer
1257 shall have the right to be informed of
the violation charged and to adduce
evidence in his favor. The court shall NONE
not be bound by the technical rules of
evidence but may be inform itself of
all the facts which are material and
relevant to ascertain the veracity of
the charge. The State shall be
represented by a prosecuting officer
in any contested hearing.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

Presidential
Section 4
Decree No. xxx

Section 33.
1257 That the application of its That, the application of its
substantive substantive provisions concerning
provisions concerning the grant the grant of probation shall only
of probation shall only take take effect twelve months.
effect on January 3, 1978."
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

Batas The probation system shall not The probation system shall not be
Pambansa be extended to a convicted extended to a convicted offenders
offenders sentenced to serve a
Blg. 76 maximum term of imprisonment
sentenced to serve a maximum
term of imprisonment of more than
of more than six (6) years and six (6) years.
one (1) day.
N.B. The probational period is
N.B. The probational period is six (6) years and below.
extended to six (6) years and
one (1) day and below
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

xxx
Batas Any person sentenced to
maximum penalty of six years
Pambansa and one day on January 3, 1978
Blg. 76 and thereafter may be placed on
probation upon his application
NONE
therefore with the court of
origin. However, such person
serving sentence shall remain in
jail pending the approval of his
application.
XXX
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

The decree restore the provision

of section 9 of PD 968 that
Presidential probation shall not be extended
Decree No. to a convicted offenders
sentenced to serve a maximum
1990
term of imprisonment of more
than six (6) years. It that senses
the decree impliedly amended
the provision of BP 76.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968
Section 1 amending Section 4 of PD
no. 968.
Xxx
Provided; That NO APPLICATION
Presidential
FOR PROBATION SHALL BE
Decree No. ENTERTAINED OR GRANTED if
1990 the defendant has perfected the NONE
appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
NB: Appeal and probation is a
mutually exclusive remedy;
meaning once a defendant filed his
appeal it is a deemed waiver of the
filing of probation.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

The period of perfecting an

appeal is also the period of
perfecting an application/filing
Presidential for probation. In general, the
Decree No. period of perfecting an appeal is
1990 NONE fifteen (15) days from the
NONE
promulgation of sentence.

N.B. 1990 – The period of

punishment which is
probationable is lowered again
from 6 years and 1 day to 6
years or less
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968
It renamed the Probation
Administration created under PD 968
into Parole and probation
Administration. It also extended the
powers and function of
Executive
the PPA. It includes the following:
Order No. 292 a. Administer the parole and
probation system;
b. Exercise general supervision over
all parolees and probationers;
c. Promote the correction and
rehabilitation of offenders; and
d. Such other functions as may
hereafter be provided by law.
V. The Probation Law and its Amendment
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
AMENDMENTS NO. 968

(2)The Administration shall have a

Technical Service under the Office
of the Administrator which shall
Executive serve as the service arm of the
Board of Pardons and Parole in the
Order No. 292
supervision of parolees and
pardonees.
The Board and the Administration
shall jointly determine the staff
complement of the Technical Service.
 That's all!
G
GOOD
D B
BLLE
ESSS
S !!