NCJ Number
74232
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 1 Issue: 2 Dated: (Second Quarter 1980) Pages: 62-65
Date Published
1980
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the probation period in the Philippines in relation to sentences which either call for imprisonment and a fine or only a fine, and it suggests improvements in dealing with the probation period.
Abstract
For sentences requiring both imprisonment and a fine, the Revised Penal Code does not allow for the consideration of the fine in the computation of the length of probation. However, Article 39 establishes a rate of 1 day of probation for each 8 pesos of the fine for those cases in which the sentence calls for a fine alone. This method of computation establishes a minimum parity with the subsidiary imprisonment and a maximum period not exceeding twice the total number of days of such imprisonment. The second paragraph of Article 39, however, effectively limits the probation period for grave felonies to 1 year and for less grave felonies to 30 days. Examples demonstrate that for both serious and minor felonies, the probation period following the imposition of a fine may often be too short to allow for rehabilitation -- the probation goal. To best handle this situation, judges use the postsentence investigation report to arrive at a reasonable period of probation. The report describes the offender and the forces and circumstances that led to the crime. An improvement in present probation practices should include a periodic review of the probation term. In Great Britain, such a review takes place every 6 months and in New Jersey, after half of the probation period has ended. If the review reports good conduct by the probationer, the remainder of the term is vacated. Furthermore, the New Jersey method establishes a fine or reparation payment plan which provides for full payment before the review. For those probationers who are ill or unable to work, unpaid balances may be vacated in the event of a favorable review. Footnotes are included.