PROBATION

Probation is a judicial disposition

after which the defendant after
conviction and sentence is released,
subject to the conditions imposed by the
court and the supervision of the
probation officer.
 Probation has originated in England
in the year 1841. Matthew Davenport
Hill (August 6, 1792 – June 7, 1872) was
an English lawyer and penologist.

Taking an interest in questions

relating to the treatment of criminal
offenders, he publicly aired opinions which
were the means of introducing many
important reforms in the methods of
dealing with crime.
 He was an English Magistrate
practiced his methods which includes
suspending judgment and releasing the
convicts in his own recognizance with a
pledge not to commit any crimes. He
was held as the Father of Probation
in England.
 He worked for the guardianship of
parents and employers of juvenile and
first-time offenders to save them from
the stigma of prison life. One of his
coadjutors in these reforms was his
brother, Frederick Hill (1803 – 1896),
who’s Amount, Causes and Remedies of
Crime, the result of his experience as
inspector of prisons for Scotland. This
marked an ear in the methods of prison
discipline.
 The more immediate origins of
modern probation lie in the efforts of
John Augustus (1785-1859), a
shoemaker from Boston, Massachusetts,
USA started the rudimentary form of
probation, recognized as the first true
probation officer and was also
considered the Father of Probation in
the USA.
 He was born in Woburn,
Massachusetts. Probation first developed
in the United States when John Augustus,
persuaded a Judge in Boston Police Court
in 1841 to give him custody of a convicted
offender, a “drunkard”, for a brief period
and them helped the man to appear
rehabilitated by the time of sentencing. He
coined the word probation which he
derived from the Latin word “probare”
which means “to prove, to test or
testing period”.
 His method of providing bail for
temporary suspension or postponement
of sentence during which he offered
assistance by way of counsel, finding
homes, securing employment and
helping offenders solve their family
difficulties in adjustment. He interceded
for youthful offenders and alcoholics and
places them in his charge.
 Much of his practical approach are
still being utilized and adopted by
probation officers worldwide in the form
of preliminary social investigation,
interviewing, family casework, foster
home placement. He eventually helped
2000 offenders, and reported only 10
absconders out of this number.
 His finances were eventually exhausted
but he had made his point so well that by the
time he stopped his philanthropy, others have
picked up where he left off and took charge of
continuing his work. In 1870, Father Cook,
another Bostonian, continued the work of
Augustus by identifying youthful offenders
being tried in the courts and whose cases were
committed by force of circumstance and not
due to the criminal nature of the accused.
 After finding that the offender is not
a hardcore felon and can still be reformed,
Father Cook presented himself before the
court as adviser to the offender.
Influenced by the efforts of Augustus,
the USA probation came to be regulated by
a statue for the first time in 1878 when
Massachusetts passed a law providing for
the appointment of a paid probation officer
for the courts of criminal jurisdiction in the
City of Boston.
 The first Probation Law was passed
by the Legislature of Massachusetts and
signed into law by Governor Alexander B.
Rice on April 26, 1878. By a statute of 1880,
the right to appoint probation officers was
extended to all cities and towns in
Massachusetts. In 1887, the City of Boston
appointed the first government probation
officer in the name of Edward N. Savage, a
former Boston Chief of Police. Vermont Act of
1898 was the second state-enacted probation
law.
 By 1891, a law was passed in
Massachusetts requiring all criminal
courts of that state to employ a
probation officer. From this date on, the
trailblazing example of Massachusetts
was followed by other states. By 1944,
all but six states in the United States
had probation officers.
 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 US Supreme Court held that a
Federal Judge (Killets) was without power to
suspend a sentence indefinitely, which is known
as the Killets Decision. It led to the passing of
the National Probation Act of 1925, thereby
allowing courts to suspend the imposition of a
sentence and place an offender on probation.
 Probation began as a humanitarian
effort to allow first-time and minor
offenders a second chance. Early
probationers were expected not only to
obey the law but also to behave in a
morally acceptable fashion. Probation
officers sought to provide moral leadership
to help shape probationers’ attitudes and
behavior with respect to family, religion,
employment and free time.
 They aimed to ensure that this was
enforced as well, and early probationers
were given the opportunity to prove
themselves and possibly even reduce their
sentence.
During the 1920s through the 1950s,
the major developments in the field of
psychology led probation officers to shift
their emphasis from moral leadership to
therapeutic counseling.
This shift brought three important
changes:
 Probation officers no longer primarily
acted as a community supervisor charged
with enforcing a particular morality;
 The probation officer became more of a
clinical social worker whose goal was to
help the offender solve psychological and
social problems; and
 The offender was expected to become
actively involved in the treatment.
 The pursuit of rehabilitation as the
primary goal of probation gave the probation
officer extensive discretion in defining and
treating the offender’s problems. Probation
officers used their judgment to evaluate each
offender and develop a treatment approach to
the personal problems that presumably had led
to crime. Many states offered to dismiss or
expungement of the conviction if the
probationer fulfilled the terms of probation.
 In the Philippines, probation was
first introduced during the American
Colonial Period (1898 – 1945) with the
enactment of Commonwealth Act No.
4221 of the Philippines Legislature on
August 7, 1935 (Philippine
Probation Act of 1935). This law
created a Probation Office under the
Department of Justice.
 On November 16, 1937, after barely two
years of existence, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, declared the Probation Law as
unconstitutional because of some defect in the
law’s procedural framework.
In the celebrated case of People vs.
Vera, the unconstitutionality of Act 4221 was
challenged based on three grounds:
 Itencroached upon the pardoning
power of the Chief Executive;

 That it constitutes an undue

delegation of legislative power; and

 That it denies the equal protection of

the law.
 On the decision by the Supreme Court to
resolve this legal question penned on November
16, 1937, it held:
 that the law was unconstitutional; that the
law does not encroach upon the powers of the
Chief Executive as they have been understood
and practiced from the earliest time;
 there was undue surrender of the legislative
power to the provincial boards for its
application was left to their determination for
the salary and appointment; and
 the unwarranted delegation of the
legislative power created for a
situation for discrimination and
inequality exist as one province may
appropriate the necessary funds for
the salary of a probation officer while
another may refuse or fail to do so;
hence it contravened the equal
protection clause in the Constitution.
 Briefly after World War II, the
extensive use of probation spread
throughout the world. The trend of
corrections moved toward the
constructive treatment of offenders
outside prison walls. It was attributed to
the increase of social services and the
improvement of casework methods.
 In 1972, House Bill No. 393 entitled
“An Act Establishing Probation in the
Philippines; Providing Probation
Officers Therefore and for Other
Purposes”, was filed in Congress sponsored
then by Congressmen Ramon D. Bagatsing
and Teodulo Natividad, which eliminate the
undesirable features of the Probation Act of
1935 and would establish a probation system
in the Philippines.
 This bill avoided the objectionable
features of Act 4221 that struck down the 1935
law as unconstitutional. But the bill was
pending in the Senate when Martial Law was
declared and Congress was abolished.
The turning point of the probation law
came on November 13, 1974 when Juan Ponce
Enrile, National Defense Secretary and
concurrent Chairman of the National Police
Commission created the Inter - Disciplinary
Committee of Crime Prevention.
 The IDC was created by the
Napolcom in 1974 under RA 4864 (Police
Act of 1966) which mandated the
Napolcom to compose a crime prevention
program for the country. To undertake this
function, the IDC, composed of the five
pillars of the judicial system and other
sector of the community was organized to
formulate a strategy to reduce crime.
 Commissioner Teodulo
Natividad was appointed as Chairman,
with four members representing the
criminal justice system and they were
tasked to draft the Adult Probation
Decree. This strategy was presented to
Pres. Marcos on July 1976. Natividad
was considered as the Father of
Probation in the Philippines.
 In 1975, after 18 technical hearings
over a period of 6 months, the draft
decree was presented to a selected group
of 369 jurists, penologists, civic leaders
and social and behavioral scientists and
practitioners. The group overwhemingly
endorsed the establishment of an Adult
Probation System in the country.
 A seminar of the probation system was
conducted in April 26, 1976 under the
auspices of the IDC sponsored by the Napolom
and the INP. It was held at the UP Law
Center and was participated by a total
number of 369 delegates from the five pillars
of the criminal justice system. The draft or
proposal of the adult probation law decree
after careful review by the multi – sectoral
experts gained favorable support.
 The final draft was approved by the
Napolcom and was favorably endorsed by the
Secretary of National Defense and the
Secretary of Justice to President Ferdinand E.
Marcos.
The Supreme Court after scrutiny favored
the adoption of the Probation Law and it played
a vital role in the final approved of the
Probation Law. On July 22 – 24, 1976, the First
National Conference on a Strategy to Reduce
Crime was held at Camp Aguinaldo.
 The forum was attended by nearly
800 participants. It was during the final
day of the conference, the historic
signing of Presidential Decree 968,
otherwise known as the Adult
Probation law of 1976 was signed into
law by His Excellency Ferdinand E.
Marcos.
 The operationalization of the
probation system in 1976 – 1977 was a
massive undertaking during which all
judges and prosecutors nationwide were
trained in probation methods and
procedures; administrative and procedural
manuals were developed; probation officers
were recruited and trained, and the central
agency and probation field offices
organized throughout the country.
 Fifteen selected probation officers were
sent to USA for orientation and training in
probation administration. Upon their return,
they were assigned to train the newly
recruited probation officers. 1977 saw the
appointment and training of 75 probation
officers, 407 assistant probation officers and
86 staff and clerical personnel and the setting
up of Administrative Machinery of the
Probation Administration.
 On December 1, 1977, Pres. Marcos
promulgated PD 1257, amending PD 968
making substantive provision of the probation
law effective on January 3, 1978. 1977 saw the
appointment and training of 75 probation
officers, 407 assistant probation officers and 86
staff and clerical personnel and the setting up of
Administrative Machinery of the Probation
Administration. As more probation officers were
recruited and trained, more field offices were
opened. At present, there are 204 field offices
spread all over the country supervised by 15
regional offices.
 The following practices were regarded by
penologists as the precursors for probation:
 BENEFIT OF THE CLERGY – during the time
where the influence of the church has been so
vast that even monarchs follow its decree, an
erring member of the clergy who has been
brought to the trial to be examined by the king’s
court may be claimed by the bishop or chaplain on
the grounds that the clergymen are subject to the
authority and jurisdiction of ecclesial courts.
Leniency has been manifested in sentencing of
said offenders if found guilty by a jury consisting
of 12 clerks.
 JUDICIAL REPRIEVE – another
means of reducing the severity of
penalties and harshness of punishment
was a temporary suspension of the
sentence imposed by the court, this would
provide the convicted offender ample time
to petition the crown for either an
absolute pardon or conditional pardon.
English courts had practiced said method
when death penalty has been imposed
under the condition that said offenders
accept exile or deportation.
 RECOGNIZANCE – this was viewed
as the practice which led to the
development of probation service in
the year 1861. It was an old method of
deferring judgment involving an
obligation or promise on the part of the
offender sworn under court order not
to violate any law in the future and
release is obtained granting that those
conditions were met.
 TRANSPORTATION – this refers to the old
practice of exile or banishment which lasted for an
approximate period covering two centuries as the
primary method of dealing with criminal offenders.
Colonies who benefited from this method of
dispensing with prisoners got cheaper labor as a
substitute for a harsh penalty. The continent of
Australia and South America were the usual
destination for transported prisoners.
 Probation which is generally a
matter of privilege is a vital component
of the correctional system. It is a phase
of penology, which must be viewed in its
relation to other aspects of law
enforcement and its proper perspective.
 As a form of treatment for
convicted criminal offenders, probation
is regarded as a substitute for
imprisonment rather than clemency,
leniency or pity. Some offenders who are
less injured to crime are better off to
remain in the community and should be
given a chance to reform themselves and
to conform to the demands and norms of
society after their conviction.
 Probation is given to criminal
offenders whose cases wherein the ends of
justice do not require imprisonment. This
will be granted when the conditions
imposed by law are met and on the premise
that the offender would reform himself,
that there is no manifested danger to
society and that the crime in which they
were convicted is not abhorrent to
members of society.
 A person placed under probation, the
probationer is not to be considered as a
freeman because he is obligated to live
within a specified area and required to
conform to the conditions imposed by the
court. When granted, probation may not be
revoked unless a violation is alleged, a
notice is given and a hearing is heard.
Incidentally a clear and satisfactory
showing or preponderance of evidence is
required to prove that violations alleged
against the probation are true.
 Probation, like parole and imprisonment
has the primary objective of protecting the
society against crimes. Although its methods
may differ, it has a broader objective which is
to serve the great end of justice. It is a visible
extension of the powers of the court over the
future behavior and destiny of convicted
offenders such is not apparent in other
dispositions of criminal cases.
Recitation