SORIANO v.

CA
G.R. No. 123936
March 4, 1999
Payment of civil indemnity is not violative of the equal protection clause as this is imposed
by law as a consequence of the commission of a crime
FACTS:
Petitioner Ronald Soriano was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property after being involved in a vehicular
accident which killed Isidrino Daluyong. His application for probation was granted and among
the terms and conditions imposed were: (a) he shall meet his family responsibilities; (b) devoting
to a specific employment or pursuing a prescribed secular study or vocational training; (c)
indemnify the heirs of the victim Daluyong in the amount of P98,560.
A motion to cancel his probation was filed due to his failure to indemnify the heirs of the victim
and a supplemental motion alleging petitioners commission of another crime while he was
awaiting arraignment. The trial court denied the motion and instead directed petitioner to submit
a program of payment of the civil liability imposed on him. Based on the information provided
by the heirs of Daluyong, petitioner still failed to satisfy his civil liability. Soriano was made to
explain his non-compliance and to submit his program of payment immediately otherwise he
would be cited for contempt. For continuous failure to comply with the orders, his probation was
revoked on October 1994 for his failure to: (a) meet his family responsibilities; (b) engage in a
specific employment, (c) satisfy his civil liability to the heirs of the victim, and (d) cooperate
with his program of supervision.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals claiming that
respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner contempt and
revoking his probation. The CA dismissed the petition holding that Sorianos stubborn
unwillingness to comply with the orders of the trial court shows his refusal to reform himself
and to correct a wrong. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the revocation of petitioners probation is lawful and proper
RULING:
YES. Revocation of probation is lawful and proper. Probation is not an absolute right. It is a
mere privilege whose grant rests upon the discretion of the trial court subject to certain terms and
conditions. Having the power to grant probation, the trial court also has the power to revoke it in
a proper case and under appropriate circumstances. Since petitioner admitted in violating the
terms and conditions of his probation, he cannot anymore assail the revocation of his probation.
Soriano claims that his non-compliance was due to his poor financial condition and that it was
impossible for him to formulate a program as he only relies on his parents for support and he was
in no position to comply with the same. He even questioned the constitutionality of the
requirement imposed as this harped on his alleged poverty. This requirement is NOT violative
Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos

of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Payment of civil liability is not a condition
precedent to probation. The trial court could not have done away with imposing civil liability as
it is not an arbitrary imposition but one required by law. Petitioner may be poor, but this is
precisely the reason why the trial court gave him the chance to make his own program of
payment in contrast to the cited Salgado case where a program of payment was already imposed
upon the petitioner therein.
Petitioner also asserts that his non-compliance with the orders of the trial court to submit a
program of payment was not deliberate as the notice was received by his counsel and did not
notify petitioner immediately. NO MERIT. His refusal to comply with said orders cannot be
anything but deliberate as petitioner had notice of both orders and refused to comply with the
trial courts directive. Petitioners counsel has not been shown to be grossly irresponsible as to
cause prejudice to petitioners rights. The fact that petitioner submitted a motion for
reconsideration of the said order, shows proof that he received the notice but still failed to
provide the required program of payment.

Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos