Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Jaime Chua Ching vs. Fernando Ching Digest

This case involves Jaime Chua Ching, who was found guilty of falsifying his voter registration to make it appear he was a Filipino citizen when he was actually a Chinese citizen without Filipino citizenship. Ching applied for probation but it was denied by the trial court based on the recommendation of the probation office. The regional trial court later granted probation but the appellate court reversed, finding Ching committed an election offense making him ineligible for probation. The Supreme Court ruled Ching was actually convicted of falsifying a public document, not an election offense, so the appellate court erred in finding him ineligible. It also found the trial court abused its discretion in solely relying on the probation office recommendation without its own evaluation.

Uploaded by

Jaen Tajanlangit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Jaime Chua Ching vs. Fernando Ching Digest

This case involves Jaime Chua Ching, who was found guilty of falsifying his voter registration to make it appear he was a Filipino citizen when he was actually a Chinese citizen without Filipino citizenship. Ching applied for probation but it was denied by the trial court based on the recommendation of the probation office. The regional trial court later granted probation but the appellate court reversed, finding Ching committed an election offense making him ineligible for probation. The Supreme Court ruled Ching was actually convicted of falsifying a public document, not an election offense, so the appellate court erred in finding him ineligible. It also found the trial court abused its discretion in solely relying on the probation office recommendation without its own evaluation.

Uploaded by

Jaen Tajanlangit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

2. Jaime Chua Ching vs.

Fernando Ching
GR No. 240843, June 3, 2019
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:

This case stemmed from an Information filed before the MeTC charging petitioner with
Falsification of a Public Document Committed by a Private Individual. The MeTC found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. It found petitioner to have
falsified his voter's registration with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by making it
appear that he is a citizen of the Philippines, when in truth, he is a Chinese citizen who has yet to
acquire Filipino citizenship. Instead of filing an appeal, petitioner filed an Application for
Probation. However, in its Post-Sentence Investigation Report, the Parole and Probation Office
of Manila, recommended that his application for probation be denied. Subsequently, the MeTC
ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner for the enforcement of the judgment
of conviction based on the denial of the Application for Probation of the Probation Officer. A
Motion for Reconsideration was filed but it was denied. Thus, petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari before the RTC. The RTC reversed and set aside the decision of the MeTC and granted
petitioner’s probation. The CA, however, reversed and set aside the RTC ruling, and accordingly,
reinstated the MeTC's denial of petitioner's application for probation.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner is entitled to a probation.

RULING:

Yes.

In this case, the Court noted that the RTC granted petitioner's application for probation
mainly on the ground that petitioner has no disqualifications under the Probation Law. In
contrast, the CA and the MeTC ruled otherwise, albeit their reasons for denial are different. In
denying petitioner's application for probation, the CA opined, inter alia, that since petitioner
committed an election offense under Section 261 of the OEC, then he shall not be subject to
probation, as provided by Section 264 of the OEC. On the other hand, the MeTC denied
petitioner's application for probation in view of the PPO-Manila's "denial" of the same.

Anent the reason proferred by the CA, a plain reading of the Information, as well as the
MeTC Decision would readily show that petitioner was tried and subsequently found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of a Public Document Committed by a
Private Individual, defined and penalized under the RPC. Hence, the CA erred in applying the
disqualification for probation found under Section 264 of the OEC as he was not adjudged guilty
of an election offense in this case.

As to the MeTC's Decision, the Court agrees with the RTC's finding that the MeTC
gravely abused its discretion when it denied petitioner's application for probation and issued a
warrant for his arrest based solely on the recommendation of the PPO-Manila as indicated in the
PSIR without conducting its own investigation on the matter. In determining whether or not to
grant the application for probation, the court must not merely rely on the PSIR - as what the
MeTC did in this case - but rather, it must make its own findings as to the merits of the
application, considering that the Probation Law vests upon it the power to make a final decision
on the matter. Had the MeTC thoroughly evaluated the merits of the application, it would have
determined that petitioner is not a disqualified offender under the Probation Law and that there is
a possibility that he can be reformed outside of a correctional institution.
In view of the foregoing, the Court agrees with the RTC that petitioner's application for
probation should be granted.

You might also like