SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

G.R. No. 168546. July 23, 2008.*

MICHAEL PADUA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Actions; Certiorari; Requisites.·For certiorari to prosper, the

following requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a
tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Same; Same; Jurisdictions; Words and Phrases; „Without
Jurisdiction,‰ „Excess of Jurisdiction,‰ and „Grave Abuse of
Discretion,‰ Defined.·„Without jurisdiction‰ means that the court
acted with absolute lack of authority. There is „excess of
jurisdiction‰ when the court transcends its power or acts without
any statutory authority. „Grave abuse of discretion‰ implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other words, power is exercised in
an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility, and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Criminal Law; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(R.A. No. 9165); Probation; Statutory Construction; It is clear under
Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation.·Padua was
charged and convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for
selling dangerous drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any
person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation, to
wit: SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug
Traffickers and Pushers.·Any person convicted for drug
trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 1 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege

granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No.
968, as amended.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

Same; Same; Same; Same; The elementary rule in statutory

construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are
clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the
language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly
what it says.·The law is clear and leaves no room for
interpretation. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. The
elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words
and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning
must be determined from the language employed and the statute
must be taken to mean exactly what it says. If a statute is clear,
plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning
and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is
known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in
the maxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention.
Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or
from the words of a statute there should be no departure.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344);

Suspension of Sentence; Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides
that once a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the offense
charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence while Section 40 provides that once the child reaches 18
years of age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the
child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence
for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 2 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

age of 21 years.·Suspension of sentence under Section 38 of Rep.

Act No. 9344 could no longer be retroactively applied for petitionerÊs
benefit. Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once a child
under 18 years of age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead
of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence. Section 40
of Rep. Act No. 9344, however, provides that once the child reaches
18 years of age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the
child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence
for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
age of 21 years. Petitioner has already reached 21 years of age or
over and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of
applying Rep. Act 9344. Thus, the application of Sections 38 and 40
appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.

521

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 521

Padua vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Cesar T. Ching for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People.

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review assails the Decision1 dated April

19, 2005 and Resolution2 dated June 14, 2005, of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86977 which had respectively
dismissed Michael PaduaÊs petition for certiorari and
denied his motion for reconsideration. PaduaÊs petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailed the Orders
dated May 11, 20043 and July 28, 20044 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 168, Pasig City, which had
denied his petition for probation.
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar
Allan Ubalde were charged before the RTC, Branch 168,
Pasig City of violating Section 5,5 Article II of Republic Act

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 3 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 18-24. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-

Fernando, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina
Arevalo-Zenarosa concurring.
2 Id., at p. 26.
3 Id., at pp. 37-38.
4 CA Rollo, p. 34.
5 SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.·The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drug, includ-

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

No. 9165,6 otherwise known as the „Comprehensive

Danger-

_______________

ing any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100)
meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 4 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated
individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity
directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in
every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated
individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and
essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the
proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty
provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be
imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a „financier‰
of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who acts as a „protector/coddler‰ of any
violator of the provisions under this Section.
6 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF

2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on June 7, 2002.

523

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 523

Padua vs. People

ous Drugs Act of 2002,‰ for selling dangerous drugs.7 The

Information reads:

„The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor,

charges Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez a.k.a. „Allan‰ and Michael
Padua y Tordel a.k.a. „Mike,‰ with the crime of violation of Sec.
5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec.
5 par. (a) and (i), committed as follows:
On or about June 6, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, Edgar Allan
Ubalde y Velchez and Michael Padua y Tordel, a minor,
seventeen (17) years old, conspiring and confederating
together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 5 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

another, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous

drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police
poseur-buyer, one (1) folded newsprint containing 4.86 grams
of dried marijuana fruiting tops, which was found positive to
the tests for marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
said law.
Contrary to law.‰8

When arraigned on October 13, 2003, Padua, assisted by

his counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty.9
During the pre-trial conference on February 2, 2004,
however, PaduaÊs counsel manifested that his client was
willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea
of guilty to avail of the benefits granted to first-time
offenders under Section 7010 of Rep. Act No. 9165. The
prosecutor interposed

_______________

7 Rollo, p. 19.
8 Id., at p. 27.
9 Id., at p. 29.
10 SEC. 70. Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor
Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment.·Upon promulgation of the sentence,
the court may, in its discretion, place the accused under probation, even
if the sentence provided under this Act is higher than that provided
under existing law on probation, or impose community service in lieu of
imprisonment. In case of probation, the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance shall be undertaken by

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

no objection.11 Thus, the RTC on the same date issued an

Order12 stating that the former plea of Padua of not guilty
was considered withdrawn. Padua was re-arraigned and
pleaded guilty. Hence, in a Decision13 dated February 6,
2004, the RTC found Padua guilty of the crime charged:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 6 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

„In view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Michael Padua
y Tordel guilty of [v]iolation of Sec. 5 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in
relation to R.A. No. 8369 Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i) thereof, and
therefore, sentences him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six
(6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum
and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

_______________

the Board through the DOH in coordination with the Board of

Pardons and Parole and the Probation Administration. Upon
compliance with the conditions of the probation, the Board shall
submit a written report to the court recommending termination of
probation and a final discharge of the probationer, whereupon the
court shall issue such an order.

The community service shall be complied with under conditions,

time and place as may be determined by the court in its discretion
and upon the recommendation of the Board and shall apply only to
violators of Section 15 of this Act. The completion of the community
service shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance of the Board during the period required by the court.
Thereafter, the Board shall render a report on the manner of
compliance of said community service. The court in its discretion
may require extension of the community service or order a final
discharge.
In both cases, the judicial records shall be covered by the
provisions of Sections 60 and 64 of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment,
the period spent in the Center by the accused during the suspended
sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served.
11 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
12 Id., at p. 30.
13 Id., at pp. 31-32. Penned by Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri.

525

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 525

Padua vs. People

No subsidiary imprisonment, however, shall be imposed should

[the] accused fail to pay the fine pursuant to Art. 39 par. 3 of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 7 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.‰14

Padua subsequently filed a Petition for Probation15

dated February 10, 2004 alleging that he is a minor and a
first-time offender who desires to avail of the benefits of
probation under Presidential Decree No. 96816 (P.D. No.
968), otherwise known as „The Probation Law of 1976‰ and
Section 70 of Rep. Act No. 9165. He further alleged that he
possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications under the said laws.
The RTC in an Order17 dated February 10, 2004 directed
the Probation Officer of Pasig City to conduct a Post-
Sentence Investigation and submit a report and
recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the order.
The City Prosecutor was also directed to submit his
comment on the said petition within five days from receipt
of the order.
On April 6, 2004, Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Josefina J. Pasana submitted a Post-Sentence
Investigation Report to the RTC recommending that Padua
be placed on probation.18
However, on May 11, 2004, public respondent Pairing
Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio issued an Order denying the
Petition for Probation on the ground that under Section
2419 of

_______________

14 Id., at p. 32.
15 Id., at p. 33.
16 ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, done on July 24, 1976.
17 Rollo, p. 34.
18 CA Rollo, pp. 22-26.
19 SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug
Traffickers and Pushers.·Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing under 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.

526

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 8 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug trafficking

cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law.
The court ruled thus:

„Before this Court now is the Post-Sentence Investigation Report

(PSIR) on minor Michael Padua y Tordel prepared by Senior Parole
and Probation Officer Teodoro Villaverde and submitted by the
Chief of the Pasig City Parole and Probation Office, Josefina J.
Pasana.
In the aforesaid PSIR, Senior PPO Teodoro Villaverde
recommended that minor Michael Padua y Tordel be placed on
probation, anchoring his recommendation on Articles 189 and 192
of P.D. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code,
as amended, which deal with the suspension of sentence and
commitment of youthful offender. Such articles, therefore, do not
find application in this case, the matter before the Court being an
application for probation by minor Michael Padua y Tordel and not
the suspension of his sentence.
On the other hand, Section 70 is under Article VIII of R.A. 9165
which deals with the Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of
Drug Dependents. Sections 54 to 76, all under Article VIII of R.A.
9165 specifically refer to violations of either Section 15 or Section
11. Nowhere in Article VIII was [v]iolation of Section 5 ever
mentioned.
More importantly, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly
Section 70 thereof deals with Probation or Community Service for
First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, the Court is of
the view and so holds that minor Michael Padua y Tordel who was
charged and convicted of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165,
cannot avail of probation under said section in view of the provision
of Section 24 which is hereunder quoted:
„Sec. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for
Drug Traffickers and Pushers.·Any person convicted for
drug trafficking or pushing under 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.‰ (underscoring supplied)

527

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 9 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 527

Padua vs. People

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for

Probation filed by Michael Padua y Tord[e]l should be, as it is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.‰20

Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but

the same was denied on July 28, 2004. He filed a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals
assailing the order, but the Court of Appeals, in a Decision
dated April 19, 2005, dismissed his petition. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

„WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby

DENIED for lack of merit and ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.‰21

Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of

Appeals decision but it was denied. Hence, this petition
where he raises the following issues:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR
PROBATION WHICH DEPRIVED PETITIONERÊS RIGHT AS A
MINOR UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. [02-1-18-SC]
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS [THE] RULE ON JUVENILES IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT [THE] ACCUSED[ÊS] RIGHT [TO BE
RELEASED UNDER RECOGNIZANCE] HAS BEEN VIOLATED
OR DEPRIVED IN THE LIGHT OF R.A. 9344 OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER
DEPARTMENT OF

_______________

20 Rollo, pp. 37-38.

21 Id., at pp. 23-24.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 10 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

JUSTICE APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND OTHER

PURPOSES.22

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing

public respondent, opted to adopt its Comment23 as its
Memorandum. In its Comment, the OSG countered that

I.
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE
LEGAL BASIS IN APPLYING SECTION 24, ARTICLE II OF R.A.
9165 INSTEAD OF SECTION 70, ARTICLE VIII OF THE SAME
LAW.
II.
SECTION 32 OF A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE „RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW‰
HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE.24

Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err
in dismissing PaduaÊs petition for certiorari assailing the
trial courtÊs order denying his petition for probation? (2)
Was PaduaÊs right under Rep. Act No. 9344,25 the „Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,‰ violated? and (3) Does
Section 3226

_______________

22 Id., at p. 97.
23 Id., at pp. 48-71.
24 Id., at pp. 55, 64.
25 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL
UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on April 28, 2006.
26 Sec. 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition
Orders.·The sentence shall be suspended without need of application by
the juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set the case for
disposition conference within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of
sentence which shall be attended by the social worker of the Family

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 11 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

Court, the juvenile, and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed
to issue any or a combination of the

529

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 529

Padua vs. People

of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise known as the „Rule on

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law‰ have application in this
case?
As to the first issue, we rule that the Court of Appeals
did not err in dismissing PaduaÊs petition for certiorari.
For certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board
or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is
no appeal or any

_______________

following disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation and

welfare of the juvenile:

1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders;

2. Community service orders;
3. Drug and alcohol treatment;
4. Participation in group counseling and similar activities;
5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation Center of the DSWD or
other centers for juveniles in conflict with the law authorized by the
Secretary of the DSWD.
The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the DSWD
shall monitor the compliance by the juvenile in conflict with the law with
the disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the Family Court a
status and progress report on the matter. The Family Court may set a
conference for the evaluation of such report in the presence, if
practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian, and other persons
whose presence may be deemed necessary.
The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a juvenile in
conflict with the law who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 12 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

one who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of promulgation of
judgment the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or over.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course

of law.27
„Without jurisdiction‰ means that the court acted with
absolute lack of authority. There is „excess of jurisdiction‰
when the court transcends its power or acts without any
statutory authority. „Grave abuse of discretion‰ implies
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to
be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other
words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility, and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all
in contemplation of law.28
A review of the orders of the RTC denying PaduaÊs
petition for probation shows that the RTC neither acted
without jurisdiction nor with grave abuse of discretion
because it merely applied the law and adhered to principles
of statutory construction in denying PaduaÊs petition for
probation.
Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section
5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous
drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that
any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the
privilege of probation, to wit:

„SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug

Traffickers and Pushers.·Any person convicted for drug
trafficking or pushing under 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.‰ (Emphasis supplied.)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 13 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing,
regardless of

_______________

27 Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, G.R.

No. 156067, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 123, 133.
28 Id.

531

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 531

Padua vs. People

the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted

by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. The elementary rule
in statutory construction is that when the words and
phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their
meaning must be determined from the language employed
and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it
says.29 If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be given its literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the
plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the
maxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of
intention.30 Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis
non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there
should be no departure.31
Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out
that the intention of the legislators in Section 24 of Rep.
Act No. 9165 is to provide stiffer and harsher punishment
for those persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing
while extending a sympathetic and magnanimous hand in
Section 70 to drug dependents who are found guilty of
violation of Sections 1132

_______________

29 Baranda v. Gustilo, No. L-81163, September 26, 1988, 165 SCRA

757, 770.
30 R. Agpalo, Statutory Construction 124 (5th ed., 2003).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 14 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

31 Id.
32 SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.·The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the decree
or purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or „shabu‰;
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

and 1533 of the Act. The law considers the users and posses-

_______________

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not
limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or „ecstasy,‰
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA),
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and
those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the
Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
„shabu‰ is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 15 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine

hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or „shabu,‰ or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or „ecstasy,‰ PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300)
grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or „shabu,‰ or
other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or „ecstasy,‰
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
33 SEC. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.·A person apprehended or
arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after
a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a

533

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 533

Padua vs. People

sors of illegal drugs as victims while the drug traffickers

and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug traffickers
and pushers, like Padua, are categorically disqualified from
availing the law on probation, youthful drug dependents,
users and possessors alike, are given the chance to mend
their ways.34 The Court of Appeals also correctly stated
that had it been the intention of the legislators to exempt
from the application of Section 24 the drug traffickers and
pushers who are minors and first time offenders, the law
could have easily declared so.35
The law indeed appears strict and harsh against drug
traffickers and drug pushers while protective of drug users.
To illustrate, a person arrested for using illegal or
dangerous drugs is meted only a penalty of six months

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 16 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

rehabilitation in a government center, as minimum, for the

first offense under Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 9165, while a
person charged and convicted of selling dangerous drugs
shall suffer life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) under Section 5, Rep. Act
No. 9165.
As for the second and third issues, Padua cannot argue
that his right under Rep. Act No. 9344, the „Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006‰ was violated. Nor can he
argue that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise
known as the

_______________

minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the

first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years and a fine from Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided,
That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions
stated therein shall apply.

34 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

35 Id., at p. 23.

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Padua vs. People

„Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law‰ has

application in this case. Section 6836 of Rep. Act No. 9344
and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC both pertain to
suspension of sentence and not probation.
Furthermore, suspension of sentence under Section 3837
of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer be retroactively
applied for petitionerÊs benefit. Section 38 of Rep. Act No.
9344 provides that once a child under 18 years of age is

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 17 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

found guilty of the offense charged, instead of pronouncing

the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child
in conflict with the law under suspended sentence. Section
4038 of Rep. Act No. 9344,

_______________

36 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving

Sentence.·Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at
the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the offense for which
they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from
the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to
appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences
shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they
are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law.
37 SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence.·Once the child who
is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction,
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
38 SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.·
If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been

535

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 535

Padua vs. People

however, provides that once the child reaches 18 years of

age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the
child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 18 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

sentence for a certain specified period or until the child

reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Petitioner has
already reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no
longer be considered a child39 for purposes of applying Rep.
Act 9344. Thus, the application of Sections 38 and 40
appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated April 19, 2005 and the Resolution dated
June 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.

Notes.·An accused shall not be allowed bail after the

judgment has become final, unless he has applied for
proba-

_______________

fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to
comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the
court for execution of judgment.

If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether
to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of
sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21)
years.
39 SEC. 4. Definition of Terms.·The following terms as used in this
Act shall be defined as follows:
xxxx
(e) „Child‰ refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 19 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559 04/09/2020, 1)55 PM

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017457adc8dd438f342c003600fb002c009e/p/ASW469/?username=Guest Page 20 of 20