Ma. Samantha O.

Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections

BS Criminology 3
Answer Sheet in Non-Institutional Corrections

I. Pre-Test. True or False

1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. TRUE
4. TRUE
5. FALSE
6. TRUE
7. TRUE
8. FALSE
9. FALSE
10. TRUE

II. Activities

Activity No. I. Table of Comparison

Community- What is the Who will Who is the How it will be

Based Concept? grant it? grantee? granted to
Corrections (Recipient) the
Recipient?
1.Absolute It refers to the The President One who served It will granted
Pardon total extinction his/her final release
of the criminal maximum and discharge
liability of the sentence or court
individual to termination of
whom it is probabtion.
granted
without any
condition
whatsoever and
restores to the
individual his
civil rights and
the penalty
imposed for the
particular
offense of
which he was
convicted.
2. Probation It is a Given by the Any sentenced The application
procedure Court offender, 18 for probation
whereby the years of age shall be filed

1
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
sentence of an above not with the court
offender is otherwise that tried and
suspended, disqualified sentenced the
while he is under PD 968 offender at any
permitted to as amended can time before the
remain in the apply for imprisonment
community, probation starts
subject to the before serving
control of the the sentence
court and which may
under the either be
supervision imprisonment
and guidance or a fine with
of probation subsidiary
officers. imprisonment,
or both
imprisonment
and fine.
3. Parole It is a Given by the A prisoner is The Board may
procedure by BPP eligible for the grant a
which grant of parole petitioner
prisoners are unless parole based on
selected for otherwise reports
release on the disqualified regarding the
basis of upon showing petitioner’s
individual that is confined work and
response and in a jail prison conduct and on
progress within to serve the study and
the indeterminate investigation by
correctional prison sentence, the board itself
institution and the maximum and its finds the
a service by period of which following
which they are exceeds one (1) circumstances
provided with year, pursuant are present,
necessary to a final such as:
controls and judgment of 1. The prisoner
guidance as conviction and is fitted by his
they serve the that he has training for
reminder of serve the release;
their sentences minimum 2. That there is
within the free period of said a reasonable
community. sentence less probability that,
the good if released, he
conduct time will live and
allowance remain at
earned. liberty without

2
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
violating the
law; and
3. That is
release will not
be incompatible
with welfare of
society.
4. Amnesty The purpose of Granted by the Granted to Amnesty can be
amnesty is to Government classes of granted before
hasten a persons or and after the
country’s communities institution of
return to who may be the criminal
political guilty of prosecution and
normalcy by political sometimes after
putting behind offenses. conviction.
it the
anomalies of
the past
through a
pardon that
will open the
door to living
normal lives
for groups of
people targeted
by the amnesty.
5. Commutation It refers to the Executive head Convicts Granted on
of Sentence reduction of of the sentenced to condition that
the duration of Government. several counts the criminal
a prison observe certain
sentence. restrictions for
the balance of
his original
sentence.

6. The basic The Board of Any person who The application

Indeterminate mandate of the Indeterminate shall have of the
Sentence Law Indeterminate Sentence served the Indeterminate
(ISLAW) Sentence Law minimum Sentence Law is
is the penalty Mandatory if
imposition of imposed on the
an him, the Board imprisonment

3
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
indeterminate of would exceed
sentence which Indeterminate one year.  It
is comprised by Sentence may, would be
a Minimum in its discretion, favorable to the
term and a and in accused
Maximum accordance with
term. the rules and
regulations
adopted
thereunder,
authorize the
release of such
prisoner of
Parole.

4
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Activity 2. Program Proposal

Title of the Short Description Reason for Implementation

program
1.Sagip kasama This program provide various This is a cognitive behavioral
Program forms of therapy to address therapy designed to help
rehabilitative needs such as offenders change the patterns of
criminal thinking and anger behavior that led to criminal
management activity.
2. Balik Trabaho This is an employment This is in order to aid their
Program preparation program that transition back into society,
provides employment skills, especially for inmates up to six
such as job readiness and job months prior to their release.
search techniques.
3. Likha sa Selda This program involves arts in The objective of this program is to
Program correction that focus on discover and improve talents for
providing inmates with arts inmates who has potentials in
programs ranging from theatre drama, arts, or creative writing
to creative writing.
4. Balik Eskwela This is an academic education This is to provide free education
Program programs include adult basic inside the corrections for inmates
education, general education who are out of school because
certification, the high school they are convicted. It may
diploma program, and various requires inmates with low literacy
college programs. scores to attend adult basic
education programs.
5. Substance This program focus on helping This program requires certain
Use Disorder inmates treat their substance use inmates who are caught using
Treatment disorders, avoid relapse, and alcohol or illegal substance while
successfully integrate into in prison to attend the said
society. program.

5
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Activity 3. Case Digesting

Case No. 1. People vs. Vera (37 0.6. 164)

Facts:
Mario Cu-Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case. He applied for PROBATION
under the provisions of ACT # 4221. He insists that he is innocent of the crime for which
he has convicted, and that he has no prior criminal record and the he would observe
good conduct in the future. The matter was referred to the Insular Probation Office, but
the Office DENIED THE PROBATION. Nevertheless, Judge Vera heard the petition. The
City Fiscal obviously opposed the grant of probation. Among the arguments raised was
that Act 4221 (which granted probation) was violative of the Constitution as an undue
delegation of legislative powers to the provincial boards of several provinces. This is
because Act 4221 ENDOWS THE PROVINCIAL BOARDS WITH THE ABSOLUTE
POWER TO MAKE SAID LAW EFFECTIVE OR RESPECTIVE NOT IN PROVINCES,
THEIR AND SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE PROBATION OFFICE. Act 4221
gives discretion to provincial boards whether the Probation Law can be made applicable
in their area, and subject to whether they FUNDS have APPROPRIATED FOR THE
SALARY OF PROBATION OFFICER.

Issue:
Whether there was valid delegation of legislative powers to provincial boards, in
the matter of implementation of the Probation Law?

Ruling:
Supreme Court: LAW INVALID. UNDUE DELEGATION. The Probation Law
does not fix nor impose upon the provincial boards, any standard or guide in the
exercise of their discretionary power. What is granted is a ROVING COMMISSION
which enables them to exercise arbitrary discretion. In reality, the Legislature has left
the entire matter to provincial boards to determine. The legislature has not made the
operation of the Law contingent upon any specified facts or conditions to be ascertained
by the provincial board. A provincial board need not investigate conditions or find any
fact or await the happening of any specified contingency. It is BOUND BY NO RULE,
LIMITED BY NO PRINCIPLE OF EXPEDIENCY. If a province does not want to enforce
said law, all it has to do is to simply decline appropriations needed for the salary of a
probation officer. It need not give any reason for refusing or failing to appropriate funds
for the salary of the probation officer. This is a matter which rests entirely at its
pleasure. This is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.

6
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Case No. 2. Tolentino vs. Judge Alconcel

Facts:
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425,
otherwise know as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Petitioner entered a plea of not
guilty. However after the prosecution had presented part of its evidence, petitioner
desires to change his plea of not guilty to that of guilty to a lesser offense of possession
of Indian Hemp (marijuana), under Section 8 of Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425.
As no objection was interposed by the fiscal, the court allowed petitioner to
withdraw his former plea of guilty and to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
Petitioner was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 2 years
and 4 months.
Petitioner applied for probation. Respondent judge forthwith directed the
probation officer to conduct a Post Sentence Investigation. After conducting such
investigation, the probation officer, recommends that petitioner be placed on two-year
probation. But the respondent judge denies petitioner’s application on the ground that it
will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. Hence, the instant recourse.

Issue:
Whether the grant of probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed?

Ruling:
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, that he was actually caught in the act of selling marijuana cigarettes.
Petitioner did not deny or dispute the veracity of the fact that he was caught in flagrante
delicto of selling marijuana cigarettes. He merely attempted to justify his criminal act by
explaining in his motion for reconsideration that “he did it only to make some money for
the family during Christmas. Such admission renders a hearing on the application for
probation an unnecessary surplusage and an Idle ceremony.
Thus, while under Rep. Act 6425, as amended by P.D. 44, possession or use of
marijuana was punishable by imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months and a fine ranging from P600.00 to P6,000.00- the penalty imposed upon
petitioner herein- Possession and use thereof is now punishable by imprisonment
ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and fine ranging from P6,000.00 to
P12,000.00 under B.P.Blg.179.
The observation of the Solicitor General on the increase of penalty is apropos:
The implication is clear. The penalties were increased to take it out of the range of
probationable offense committed, and will not serve the ends of justice and the best
interest of the community, particularly, the innocent and gullible young.

7
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Case No. 3. Baclayon vs. Mutia

Facts:
Petitioner, a school teacher, was convicted of the crime of Serious Oral
Defamation by the then Municipal Court of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, then presided
by the respondent Pacito G. Mutia for having quarrelled with and uttered insulting and
defamatory words against Remedios Estillore, principal of the Plaridel Central School.
Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, taking into account the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account
of her rank and age.
Petitioner applied for probation with respondent judge who referred the
application to a Probation Officer. The Post- Sentence Investigation Report favorably
recommended the granting of petitioner’s probation for a period of three (3) years. On
December 21, 1981, respondent Judge issued an order granting petitioner’s probation.
Petitioner’s plea for deletion of the last condition was rejected by respondent judge. The
Petitioner submits that said condition is not only detrimental and prejudicial to her
rights but is also not in accordance with the purposes, objectives and benefits of the
probation law and prays that the said condition be deleted from the order granting her
probation. On petitioner’s motion, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
enjoying respondent judge from enforcing the said questioned condition.

Issue:
Whether or not a teacher applied for probation may be prohibited from
continuing her teacher profession as a condition for the said probation?

Ruling:
The conditions which trial courts may impose on a probationer may be classified
into general or mandatory and special or discretionary. Special or discretionary
conditions are those additional condition, listed in the same Section 10 of the Probation
Law, which the courts may additionally impose on the probationer towards his
correction and rehabilitation outside of prison. There are innumerable conditions which
may be relevant to the rehabilitation of the probationer when viewed in their specific
individual context. Petitioner is a teacher and teaching is the only profession she knows
and as such she possesses special skills and qualifications. She also excelled in her study
of Child Study and Development. To order the petitioner to refrain from teaching would
deprive the students and the school in general the benefits that may be derived from her
training and expertise. While it is true that probation is a mere privilege and its grant
rests solely upon the discretion of the court, the discretion is to be exercised primarily
for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused.
In this case, teaching has been the lifetime and only calling and profession of petitioner.
The law requires that she devote herself to a lawful calling and occupation during
probation. Yet, to prohibit her form engaging in teaching would practically prevent her
from complying with the terms of the probation.

8
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Case No. 4. Monsantos vs. Factoran

Facts:
The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto (then assistant
treasurer of Calbayog City) of the crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents. She was sentenced to jail and to indemnify the government in the sum of
P4,892.50.The SC affirmed the decision. She then filed a motion for reconsideration but
while said motion was pending, she was extended by then President Marcos absolute
pardon which she accepted (at that time, the rule was that clemency could be given even
before conviction). By reason of said pardon, petitioner wrote the Calbayog City
treasurer requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer
since the same was still vacant. Her letter was referred to the Minister of Finance who
ruled that she may be reinstated to her position without the necessity of a new
appointment not earlier than the date she was extended the absolute pardon.    
Petitioner wrote the Ministry stressing that the full pardon bestowed on her has wiped
out the crime which implies that her service in the government has never been
interrupted and therefore the date of her reinstatement should correspond to the date of
her preventive suspension; that she is entitled to backpay for the entire period of her
suspension; and that she should not be required to pay the proportionate share of the
amount of P4,892.50    The Ministry referred the issue to the Office of the President.
Deputy Executive Secretary Factoran denied Monsanto’s request averring that
Monsanto must first seek appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her
former position.
Issue:
Whether or not public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon by the
Chief Executive, entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a new
appointment? 

Ruling:
The pardon granted to petitioner has resulted in removing her disqualification
from holding public employment but it cannot go beyond that. To regain her former
post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure
required for a new appointment. 

9
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

Case No. 5. Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol, 108 Phil 353
Facts:
The petitioner had been convicted of the crime of inciting to sedition. While
serving his sentence, he was granted by the President a conditional pardon “on
condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.” 
Espuelas accepted the conditional pardon and was released from confinement.
Sometime thereafter, he was convicted by the Justice of the Peace Court in Tagbilaran,
Bohol, of the crime of usurpation of authority. He appealed to the Court of First
Instance. Upon motion of the provincial fiscal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the
case provisionally, an important prosecution witness not having been available on the
day set for trial. A few months later, upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons and
Parole, the President ordered his recommitment to prison to serve the unexpired period
of his original sentence.

Issues:
The question to determine is whether the President may order the
reincarceration of the appellee, upon violation by the latter of the terms of the
conditional pardon granted to and accepted by him, to serve the unexpired term or
period of his sentence.
Ruling:
The condition of the pardon granted by the President to the petitioner is "that he
shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be
violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law."
When he was conditionally pardoned it was a generous exercise by the Chief Executive
of his constitutional prerogative. The acceptance thereof by the convict or prisoner
carries with it the authority or power of the
Executive to determine whether a condition or conditions of the pardon has or have
been violated. To no other department of the Government such power has been
entrusted.
where, as in the instant case, the determination of the violation of the conditional parole
rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the Chief Executive, the courts will not
interfere, by way of review, with any of his findings

10
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3

III. Evaluation

Post-Test No. 1. Essay Questions

Question 1.

The Advantage of Community-Based Correction compared to Institution-Based

Correction is, it gives opportunity to inmates for reformation and to provide an
opportunity for his reintegration into the community. This may also prevent the
commission of offenses, offenders who remain in the community can continue
financially supporting themselves and their family through receiving wages and paying
taxes. Community-based correction can also ease jail and prison crowding.

Question 2.

The Board may grant a petitioner parole based on reports regarding the
petitioner’s work and conduct and on the study and investigation by the board itself and
its finds the following circumstances are present, such as ; The prisoner is fitted by his
training for release; That there is a reasonable probability that, if released, he will live
and remain at liberty without violating the law; and That is release will not be
incompatible with welfare of society.

Question 3.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgement of another crime in the title of the Revised
Penal Code. While for the existence of habitual delinquency, when a person has been
convicted for the third time within ten (10) years for the same offense or within the
same title of the crime.

Question 4.

Yes, Juan Dela Cruz is qualified for probation because his maximum sentence is
not more than 6 years. And under section 70 of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, the court may in its discretion, placed the accused under probation
even if the sentence provided under section 11 of the act is higher than that provided
under the probation law.

Question 5.

No, Juan Dela Cruz cannot apply for probation because according to Section 24,
Article II of RA. No. 9165, Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under

11
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.

Post Test No. 2. Writing Summary

Simple Summary of the Lessons

Community-based corrections are non-institutional based corrections which are
being considered as the best alternative for imprisonment. It is a non-incarcerate system
of correction. It is described as a method of rehabilitating convicted felons without the
need of placing them into jail or prison facilities. It is likewise refer to any sanctions in
which convicts serve all or a portion of their entire sentence in the community. The idea
behind non-institutional correction programs is that, most convicts can be effectively
held accountable for their crimes at the same time that they can fulfill legitimate living
standards in the community. Rehabilitating convicts within the community confers
several benefits such as, the convict will remain in the community in which he or she has
responsibilities. He can continuously engage to his legitimate sources of livelihood to
support himself and his family and the government can collect taxes from him; Convicts
under community-based corrections are more capable to compensate their victims
through restitution or to pay-back the community through community service, and
Community-based corrections programs do not expose convicts to the subculture of
violence existing in jails and prisons.
Correction is the branch of the administration of Criminal Justice charged with
the responsibility for the custody, supervision and rehabilitation of convicted offenders.
The dual purposes of Correction are to punish, and to rehabilitate the offender.
Institutionalized Correction is the rehabilitation of offenders in jail or in prison. Non-
institutionalized Correction (Community-Based Correction) refers to correctional
activities that may take place within the community. They are in the forms of Probation,
Parole, Conditional Pardon, Community works. Community-based corrections include
all correctional activities that take place in the community. It embraces any correctional
activity in the community that directly addressed to the offender and aimed at helping
him to become a law-abiding citizen. Probation is a disposition, under which a
defendant after conviction and sentence, is release subject to the conditions imposed by
the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. Parole is a conditional release
from prison of a convicted person upon service of the minimum of his indeterminate
penalty. Pardon is a form of executive clemency which is exercise exclusively by the
Chief Executive. Pardon may be given conditionally (Conditional Pardon) or
unconditionally (absolute Pardon).
For the purpose of Non-Institutional Correction, it is the Conditional Pardon with
Parole Conditions is under consideration. For simple infraction of laws or ordinances,
Community Service may likewise be considered as Community-based Correction. This is
impose to require the violators to render community service in lieu of payment of fine
12
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
and/or imprisonment. The Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) conduct
investigation of all cases in relation to parole, probation and pardon, and Responsible
for the supervision of all parolees, probationers and conditional pardon grantees. Board
of Pardon and Parole (BPP) has the authority in Granting Parole, and responsible for
recommending the grant of pardon and executive clemency to the president. The
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is handling cases of Child in
Conflict with the Law (CICL). The following are the benefits of Community-Based
Corrections; Strengthening family ties through avoidance of broken family
relationships, prevention of Influence Contamination, engagement of Community
Involvement, assurance of Individualized Treatment Approach, it is more economical
than institution-based correction on the part of the government.
Executive Clemency refers to the COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE, ABSOLUTE
PARDON, AND CONDITIONAL PARDON, with or without the parole conditions, as
may be granted by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the
Board of Pardon and Parole. Amnesty is granted by the government, especially to a
group of persons who are guilty of (usually political) crimes in the past. It is often
conditional upon the group’s return to obedience and duty within a prescribed period.
Commutation of Sentence refers to the reduction of the duration of a prison sentence.
The reduction of a sentence for a criminal act by action of the executive head of the
government. Once earned, the commutation becomes a matter of right and may be
enforced by court action. Purposes of Commutation is to break the rigidity of the law, to
extend parole in cases where the parole law do not apply, and to save the life of a person
sentenced to death. Reprieve is the act of postponing the enforcement of a sentence,
particularly a death sentence, to allow an appeal. Remit Fines and Forfeitures prevents
the collection of fines or the confiscation of forfeited property; it cannot have the effect
of returning property which has been vested in third parties or money already in public
treasury.
Probation as a term and as a procedure is derived from the Latin word
“PROBARE” meaning to PRAVE. Therefore, as the term Latin Etymology states,
probation involves the testing of an offender and proving that he's worth of his freedom.
Probationer means a person placed on probation. Probation Officer means one who
investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both;
and performs other related duties as directed. Petitioner is a convicted defendant who
files a formal application for probation. Probation as a practice is believed to have been
the product of the following olden practices such as, Money Compensation, Cities of
Refuge, Benefits of the Clergy, Judicial Reprieve, Recognizance, and
Banishment/Transportation.
JOHN AUGUSTUS (Boston, Massachusetts) is a Boston shoemaker traditionally
known as initiator of probation process. He coined the term probation and is viewed as
its founder. He was later called the “Father of Probation”. The first American probation
officer who developed several features that later became he characteristics of the
probation system. MATTHEW DAVENPORT HILL (Birmingham, England) is an
English Lawyer who had introduced the practice of suspending sentence and releasing
the offender under supervision in England. He was later called the “Father of Probation

13
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
in England”. TEODULO C. NATIVIDAD is a Co-sponsored house bill no. 393 entitled
“An Act Establishing Probation in the Philippines: Providing probation Officers
therefore and for Other Purposes.” He is known as the “Father of Probation in the
Philippine”. HUBER LAW (1913) is a United States Law in Wisconsin permitting
prisoners not so dangerous to society to be gainfully employed during the day while
residing in jail. FLASH SHEET is when a Probation Officer shall notify all police
agencies by sending a note that Probationer is under his supervision. SURSIS (1888-
1891) is a unique probation method was introduced in France and Belgium which
provided a probation with no supervision on the condition that no further offense will be
committed within a prescribed period.
Presidential Decree No. 968 which established a probation system as a less costly
alternative to the imprisonment of offenders who are likely to respond to individualized,
community-based treatment programs is the second legislation that enforces a
probation system in the country. The first legislation was ACT NO. 4221 enacted by the
Probation Officer under the Department of Justice, Led by a Chief Probation Officer
appointed by the American Governor General with the advice and consent of the U.S.
SENATE. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 603, otherwise known as the CHILD AND
YOUTH WELFARE CODE was passed to avail, PROBATION TO MINOR OFFENDERS.
Presidential Decree No. 968 is the Probation Law of 1976. Also known as the “Adult
Probation Law”. The following are the basic elements of probation, a suspension of the
sentence, a period at trial for the offender in the community, the offender’s observance
of the law and the adherence to the condition imposed by the court; and the supervision
of the offender by a probation officer.
The purpose of probation is to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an
offender by providing him with individualized (personalized), community based
treatment, to provide an opportunity for his reformation and reintegration into the
community; and to prevent the commission of offenses. Probation is a Privilege and, as
such, its grant rest solely upon the discretion of the court. The grant of probation results
in the release of the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the court
and to the supervision of Probation Office. An order placing defendant on “probation” is
NOT a “sentence” but is rather in effect a suspension of the impossible of sentence. It is
not a final judgment but is rather an “interlocutory judgment” in the nature of a
conditional order placing the convicted defendant under the supervision of the court for
his reformation, to be followed by a final judgment of discharge, if the conditions of the
probation are complied with, or by a final judgment of sentence if the conditions are
violated. Any sentenced offender, 18 years of age above not otherwise disqualified under
PD 968 as amended can apply for probation before serving the sentence which may
either be imprisonment or a fine with subsidiary imprisonment, or both imprisonment
and fine.
When probation is granted, the probationer is required to obey the following
conditions imposed by the Court such as, the probationer must present himself to his
Probation Officer within seventy-two (72) hours, report to his Probation Officer in-

14
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
charge of his supervision at least once a month, not to commit any offense; and comply
with any other conditions imposed by the court. Probationers report to their probation
officer as often as indicated in the conditions of probation. The PO makes regular
reports about the probationer to the court. The grant of probation will be revoke if the
probationer commits the following; Failure to comply with any condition; and
Commission of another offense. The legal discharge of the probationer from probation
has the following effects such as, probation shall restore to him all civil right lost or
suspended as a result of the conviction; and shall fully discharge his liability for any fine
imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted.
Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional
institution after he has served the minimum period of his prison sentence under the
continued custody of the State and under conditions that permit his reincarnation if he
violates a condition for his release. The word “PAROLE” is a French word and is used
here in the sense of word of honor. Parole in the Philippines is governed by the
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, also known as ACT NO. 4103, Dated December
05, 1933, and this law was subsequently amended by ACT No. 4225, and later in June
19, 1965 by Republic Act No. 4203. If during the surveillance such parole prisoner shall
show himself to be a law abiding citizen and shall not violated any of the laws of the
Philippine Islands, the Board of Indeterminate sentence may issue a final certificate of
release in his favor, which shall entitled him to final release and discharge. The Parole
and Probation Administration was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 968,
“The Probation Law of 1976,” to administer the probation system. Under Executive
Order No. 292, “The Administrative Code of 1987” which was promulgated on
November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed “Parole and Probation
Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners who, after
serving part of their sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with parole
conditions.
The Parole and Probation Administration is mandated to conserve and/or
redeem convicted offenders and prisoners who are under probation or parole system. To
promote the reformation of criminal offenders and reduce the incidence of recidivism,
and provide a cheaper alternative to the institutional confinement of first-time offenders
who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based treatment programs.
Pardon is a form of Executive Clemency which is exercised by the Chief Executive. It is
an act of grace and the recipient of Pardon is entitled to it is as a matter of right. The
exercise of pardon is vested in the executive, is discretionary and is not subject to review
or judicial notice by the court. Absolute Pardon refers to the total extinction of the
criminal liability of the individual to whom it is granted without any condition
whatsoever and restores to the individual his civil rights and the penalty imposed for the
particular offense of which he was convicted. Conditional Pardon refers to the
exemption of an individual, within certain limit s or conditions, from the punishment
which the law inflicts for the offense he has committed resulting in the partial extinction
of his criminal liability.

15
Ma. Samantha O. Garcia Non-Institutional Corrections
BS Criminology 3
Indeterminate Sentence is a sentence with a minimum and a maximum term
benefit of a guilty person, who is not disqualified therefore, when the maximum penalty
of imprisonment exceeds one year. It applies to both violations of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) and Special Penal Law (SPL). The purpose of the law is to uplift and redeem
valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal
liberty and economic usefulness. As general rule, “all person convicted of any crime
under Philippine Courts regardless whether it is in violation of RPC or SPL, are qualified
for the application of Indeterminate Sentence Law.” Except, to those persons specifically
disqualified by law. To ensure public safety is the desired outcome of the criminal justice
system’s intervention in rehabilitating offenders. For this reason, criminal justice
practitioners must find and must continuously develop the most effective ways in which
this goal may be achieved.

16