LESSON 1

History of Probation
The origin of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages.
Harsh punishments were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were
not always of a serious nature. Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation, and
execution were common. During the time of King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than
200 crimes were punishable by death, many of which were minor offenses.

This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of

English society that were concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but
resolutely, in an effort to mitigate these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures
were devised and adopted. Royal pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist
judges could refrain from applying statutes or opt for a lenient interpretation of them;
stolen property could be devalued by the court so that offenders could be charged with
a lesser crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, judicial reprieve, sanctuary, and
abjuration offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment of harsh
sentences.

Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a
form of temporary release during which offenders could take measures to secure
pardons or lesser sentences. Controversially, certain courts began suspending
sentences.

The first true probation officer. Augustus was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in
1785. By 1829, he was a permanent resident of Boston and the owner of a successful
boot-making business. It was undoubtedly his membership in the Washington Total
Abstinence Society that led him to the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained from
alcohol themselves and were convinced that abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated
through understanding, kindness, and sustained moral suasion, rather than through
conviction and jail sentences.

In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard,"
the first probationer. The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later for
sentencing. He returned to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the
astonishment of all in attendance, his appearance and demeanor had dramatically
changed.
 Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all
of the offenders helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective
probationers taken under his wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or
not a candidate would likely prove to be a successful subject for probation. The
offender's character, age, and the people, places, and things apt to influence him or her
were all considered.

Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process,

one of three main concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and
supervision. Augustus, who kept detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to
apply the term "probation" to his method of treating offenders.

Probation was derived from the Latin word “Probare” which means to prove, to
test. The word probation was coined by John Augustus.

Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread gradually throughout
the United States. The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development
of probation as a legally- recognized method of dealing with offenders. The first juvenile
court was established in Chicago in 1899. Formalization of the intake process is
credited to the founders of the Illinois juvenile court. Soon after, 30 states introduced
probation as a part of the juvenile court procedure. Today, all states offer both juvenile
and adult probation.

Matthew Davenport Hill, a lawyer from England is also noted to have contributed
to the development of modern probation. Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful
offenders to one-day terms on the condition that they be returned to a parent or
guardian who would closely supervise them. When he eventually became the Recorder
of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar practice for individuals who did not
seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for rehabilitation, they
were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of them. Hill
had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to track the
offender's progress and keep a running account.
Probation in the United States

In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being

developed. "Security for good behavior," also known as “good aberrance,” was much
like modern bail: the accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior. Filing was also
practiced in cases that did not demand an immediate sentence. Using this procedure,
indictments were "laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory
penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash based upon minor technicalities or
errors in the proceedings. Although these American practices were precursors to
probation, it is the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence that are directly
related to modern probation.

Establishing probation as a sentencing option in the federal courts did not

happen quickly or easily. Opinion on the wisdom of doing so was sharply divided. Some
federal judges were for probation, seeing it as an alternative to the sometimes harsh
penalties they were compelled to impose. Other federal judges were against probation,
finding it too lenient. Congress could not reach agreement on a national plan. The first
bills for a federal probation law had been introduced in Congress in 1909. But it was not
until 1925--and after more than 30 bills had been introduced--that one such bill became
law.

The Probation Act of 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, provided for a
probation system in the federal courts (except in the District of Columbia). It gave the
courts the power to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place
defendants on probation for such period and on such terms and conditions as they
deemed best. The Act also authorized courts to appoint one or more persons to serve
as probation officers without compensation and one salaried probation officer. The first
federal probation officer was appointed in 1927 in the District of Massachusetts.

Initially, the administration of federal probation was the responsibility of the Office
of the Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. Direct supervision fell to the
superintendent of prisons, who was also in charge of prison industries and parole. In
effect, federal probation officers answered to two authorities. Although the Attorney
General set their salaries and provided for expenses such as clerical services and
travel, judges appointed them. This arrangement changed in 1940, when general
oversight of the probation system was transferred from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
 In 1974 Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act. Title II of the Act authorized the
Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to establish "demonstration" pre-
trial services agencies in 10 judicial districts. The goal was to reduce crime by persons
released to the community pending trial and to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention.
The agencies were to interview each person charged with other than a petty offense,
verify background information, and present a report to the judicial officer considering
bail. The agencies also were to supervise persons released to their custody pending
trial and to help defendants on bail locate and use community services. Five of the
agencies were administered by the Administrative Office and five by boards of trustees
appointed by the chief judges of the district courts.

President Ronald Reagan signed the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. The Act
authorized expansion of pretrial services from the ten demonstration districts to every
federal judicial district (except the District of Columbia). It granted an 18-month
evaluation period for each court to decide whether to establish separate pretrial services
offices or provide pretrial services through the probation office. Consequently, each
court chose the form of pretrial services organization that best met its needs,
considering such factors as criminal caseload and court locations. Expanding pretrial
services to all districts marked a significant milestone for what was now the "federal
probation and pretrial services system." Now officers were involved in the criminal
justice process from the time a person was arrested on a federal charge until he or she
completed community supervision.

US Probation and Pretrial Services Milestones

 1925 President Calvin Coolidge signs the Probation Act of 1925, establishing
probation as a sentence in the federal courts.
 1927 The first federal probation officer, Richard McSweeney, is appointed in the
District of Massachusetts.
 1930 Congress creates the National Parole Board and amends the Probation
Act to give officers responsibility to supervise federal parolees.
 1937 The first issue of the scholarly journal Federal Probation is published.
 1943 The first policy monograph, The Presentence Investigation Report, tells
officers how to conduct presentence investigations and prepare reports.
 1946 Officers take on the duty of investigating the parole plans of Army and Air
Force prisoners and supervising them following release from disciplinary
barracks.
  1950 A national training center is established in Chicago to provide officers with
orientation and refresher training.
 1955 Officers form their own professional organization, the Federal Probation
and Pretrial Officers Association.
 1963 The Judicial Conference of the United States forms a permanent
committee—the Committee on the Administration of the Probation System—
expressly to address probation system issues.

History of Probation in the Philippines

Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the American colonial
period (1898– 1945) with the enactment of Act No. 4221 of the Philippine Legislature on
August 7, 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 unconstitutional because of some defects in the
law's procedural framework.

In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was filed in Congress, which 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. The bill was passed by the
House of Representatives, but was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was
declared and Congress was abolished.

In 1975, the National Police Commission Interdisciplinary drafted a Probation

Law. After 18 technical hearings over a period of six 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 overwhelmingly endorsed the
establishment of an Adult Probation System in the country.

On July 24, 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as Adult Probation
Law of 1976, was signed into Law by the President of the Philippines.

The startup 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 recruited and trained, and the central agency and probation field offices
organized throughout the country.

The probation system started to operate on January 3, 1978. As more probation

officers were recruited and trained, more field offices were opened. There are at present
204 field offices spread all over the country, supervised by 15 regional offices

Laws Affecting the Establishment and Modifications of Probation in the Philippines PD

968 – Probation Law of the Philippines of 1976
 P.D. 1257 – participation of the prosecutor in the determination of the application
for probation
 P.D. 76 – the period of punishment which is probationable is extended from 6
years and 1 day.
 P.D. 1990 – the period of punishment which is probationable is lowered again
from 6 years and 1 day to 6 years or less
 E.0.292 (Administrative Code of 1987) – renamed the Probation Administration
into Parole and probation Administration

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10707 - An act amending presidential decree no. 968, otherwise
known as the “probation law of 1976”, as amended.

PD 968 – This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976

Purpose. — This Decree shall be interpreted so as to:
(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less
probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and .
(c) prevent the commission of offenses.
Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of
said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a
fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the
appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of
the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to appeal, or the automatic
withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this
Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
Republic Act No. 10707 amending some provisions of PD 968

Grant of Probation. —the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the
period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may
deem best. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed,
and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before
such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified
decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since
been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further
appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application
and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.

Control and Supervision of Probationer. The probationer and his probation program
shall be under the control of the court who placed him on probation subject to actual
supervision and visitation by a probation officer.

Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of

another court, control over him shall be transferred to the Executive Judge of the Court
of First Instance of that place, and in such a case, a copy of the probation order, the
investigation report and other pertinent records shall be furnished said Executive Judge.
Thereafter, the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred
shall have the power with respect to him that was previously possessed by the court
which granted the probation.
Period of Probation.
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not more than one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period
shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less
than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as
computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
Amicus Curiae - Upon written invitation by the Trial Court, the Administrator and/or
Deputy Administrator, for the Agency Level, Regional Director, for the Regional Level,
Chief Probation and Parole Officers for the City or Provincial Level may appear as
amicus curiae on any probation investigation and supervision issue, concern or matter.
The applicant shall file his application with the Trial Court at any time after conviction
and sentence but within the period for perfecting his appeal as provided by the Rules of
Court.
The application for probation shall be in the form approved by the Secretary of Justice
as recommended by the Administrator or as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Official application form or Xerox copy of the same may be obtained or secured from
any City or Provincial Parole and Probation Office for free.
Notice to the Prosecuting Officers of the Filing of the Application. - The Trial Court may
notify the concerned Prosecuting Officer of the filing of the application at a reasonable
time it deems necessary, before the scheduled hearing thereto
Comment. - The Prosecuting Officer may submit his comment(s), if any, on the
application within a reasonable time given to him by the Trial Court from his receipt of
the notice to comment.
Referral to Proper Probation Office. - If the Trial Court finds that the application is in due
form and the applicant appears to be qualified for the grant of probation, it shall order
the City or Provincial Parole and Probation Office within its jurisdiction to conduct a
Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) on the applicant and submit the Post-Sentence
Investigation Report (PSIR) within sixty (60) days from receipt of the order of said court
to conduct such investigation with findings and recommendation as stated in PD 968, as
amended.
Docket Book. - All court orders for PSI, copies of which were received by the Probation
Office, shall be numbered consecutively in the order received by said Office and
recorded in its Docket Book for the purpose, indicating therein, among others, the date
of receipt thereof, court, its branch and address, applicant's name, criminal case
number, description/designation of the offense, penalty imposed, and other related data
and information.
Effects of Filing and Receipt. –
(a) The Trial Court may, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution
of the sentence imposed in the judgment.
(b) Pending the submission of the PSIR (PPA Form 3) and the resolution on the
application, the applicant may be allowed on temporary liberty under his bail filed in the
criminal case: Provided , That, in case where no bail was filed or the applicant is
incapable of filing one, the trial court may allow the release of the applicant on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community who shall
guarantee his appearance whenever required by the trial court.
Initial Interview Work Sheet: Waiver. –
(a) Within five (5) working days from receipt of said delegated assignment (or self -
assignment), the investigating Probation Officer on case (or Chief Probation and Parole
Officer) shall initially interview the applicant if he appeared in the Probation Office upon
response to the seventy-two (72) hours limitation given to him by the Trial Court. If not,
the Probation Officer on case may write the applicant in his court given address, or
personally visit applicant's place to schedule an initial interview at the Probation Office.
During such initial interview, the Probation Officer on case or CPPO shall require the
applicant to accomplish and sign a Post-Sentence Investigation Work Sheet (PPA Form
1). The investigating Probation Officer on case or CPPO shall conduct further
investigation based on the information contained therein.
(b) A Waiver-Cum-Authorization (PPA Form 2), authorizing the PPA and/or the
Probation Office to secure any and all information on the applicant, shall be duly
executed and signed by him.

Scope and Extent. –

After accomplishing the Post-Sentence Investigation Work Sheet and the Waiver-Cum-
Authorization, the same shall be immediately submitted to the Probation Office. The
investigating Probation Officer on case or CPPO shall conduct a thorough investigation
on the antecedents, mental and physical condition, character, socio-economic status,
and criminal records, if any, of the applicant and the institutional and community
resources available for his rehabilitation.
In case applicant has a criminal record(s), such should be verified with the proper
government agency(ies) as to its disposition/resolution which has/have to be properly
reflected in the PSIR.
For the sake of obtaining additional information or clarify conflicting data, the
investigating Probation Officers on case may conduct further investigation and interview
to avoid discrepancies of facts/information.
The investigating Probation Officer on case or CPPO shall assess and recommend or
prescribe the suitable probation treatment and supervision program upon the applicant,
if granted probation.

Collateral Information. - During the conduct of the PSI, collateral information must be
gathered from those persons who have direct personal knowledge of the applicant,
offended party, family member, and/or their relatives, including barangay officials and
disinterested persons.

Subsequent or Further Interviews. - To obtain additional data, counter check, or clarify

discrepancy/ies between the information received from the applicant and those secured
from other sources, the Investigating Probation Officer on case or CPPO may conduct
subsequent or further interviews on the applicant and/or other persons as deemed
appropriate.

Nature of Interview. - The data and information gathered from the interview of the
applicant and/or other persons and from other collateral informants, as well as law
enforcement agencies, shall be strictly privileged and confidential in nature.
During such interview and information-gathering processes, the applicant does not
necessarily need to be represented and assisted by counsel.

Confidentiality of Post-Sentence Investigation Information. - The investigating Probation

and Parole Officer on case or CPPO shall inform the applicant of the confidential nature
of the information taken during the PSI and the limited scope and extent whereby said
information, may be disclosed only to some statutorily designated authorities and
entities pursuant to Section 17 of PD 968, as amended, and Section 64 of these Rules.

Absconding Applicant. – If the applicant whose application for probation has been given
due course by the proper court has failed to present himself/herself to the proper Office
within seventy-two (72) hours from his/her receipt of the Probation Order or within
reasonable time therefrom, said Office shall first exert best diligent efforts to inquire on,
search, find and locate his/her whereabouts before it shall report such fact with
appropriate recommendation to the proper court, considering the surrounding
circumstances of place, date and time, his/her health condition and other related
factors.

Contents. - (a) The PSIR shall contain, among others, the following:
(i) circumstances surrounding the crime or offense for which the applicant was
convicted and sentenced, taken from the applicant himself, offended party and others,
who might have knowledge of the commission of the crime or offense, and pertinent
information taken from the police and other law enforcement agencies, if any, and Trial
Court records;
(ii) details of other criminal records, if any;
(iii) personal circumstances, educational, economic and socio-civic data and
information about the applicant;
(iv) characteristics of applicant, employable skills, employment history, collateral
information;
(v) evaluation and analysis of the applicant's suitability and legal capacity for
probation and his potential for rehabilitation, reform, development, transformation and
re-integration into the community;
(vi) recommendation to:
(A) grant the application, including probation period, probation conditions and
probation treatment and supervision plan/program; or
(B) deny the application
(vii) data and information on the applicant's financial condition and capacity to pay,
his civil liability, if any;
(viii) results of findings of drug, psychological and clinical tests conducted, if any;
(ix) results of criminal records, if any, whether decided or still pending furnished by
various law enforcement agencies tapped by the Probation Office for such purpose;
(x) result(s) of courtesy investigation, whether GCI/FBCI or PGCI (See Sec. 27 of
these Rules), if any, conducted in the birth place or place of origin of applicant
especially if he plans to reside thereat while on probation, if ever his application will be
granted; and
(xi) other analogous and related matters.
(b) to obtain additional data or clarify discrepancies between the information received
from the applicant and those secured from other sources, the investigating Probation
Officer and/or Chief Parole and Probation Officer may conduct such subsequent or
further interviews on the applicant and/or other persons as may be deemed proper and
necessary.
Nature of Recommendation. - The entire PSIR submitted to the Trial Court is
recommendatory in nature and the final recommendation contained on the last page of
the PSIR is persuasive in character addressed to the sound discretion of the Trial Court
considering that the denial or grant of probation is a judicial function.

Its Nature and Coverage. - Full Blown Courtesy Investigation (FBCI) is a General
Courtesy Investigation (GCI) from another City or Provincial Parole and Probation Office
which requests for a complete PSIR on a petition for probation pending referral
investigation in the Probation Office of origin.
It shall take place when upon initial investigation it is gathered that,
(a) Applicant for probation is a transient offender in the place of commission of the
crime and/or a permanent resident of another place;
(b) He spent his pre-adolescent and/or adolescent life in the province or city of
origin;
(c) He attended and/or finished his education thereat; and
(d) His immediate family members, collateral informants or disinterested persons
and officials who can best authenticate the inter-family relationship, upbringing,
behavior of the applicant for probation in the community are residents of the place of his
origin.

Period to Resolve the Application for Probation. - The application for probation shall be
resolved by the Trial Court not later than fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt of
the PSIR.

Nature of Probation:
Effect of the Grant of Probation. – (a) Probation is but a mere privilege and as such, its
grant or denial rests solely upon the sound of discretion of the Trial Court. After its grant
it becomes a statutory right and it shall only be canceled or revoked for cause and after
due notice and hearing.
(b) The grant of probation has the effect of suspending the execution of sentence. The
Trial Court shall order the release of the probationer's cash or property bond upon which
he was allowed temporary liberty as well as release the custodian on ROR from his
undertaking.

Effectivity of Probation Order. – A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at
which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequence thereat and explain
that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or
his commission of another offense under which he was placed on probation.
Upon receipt of the Probation Order granting probation the same shall be entered in a
Docket Book for proper recording.
An order of denial shall be docketed as well.
Mandatory Conditions. - A Probation order shall require the probationer:
(a) to present himself to the Probation Office for supervision within 72 hours from
receipt of said order; and
(b) to report to the assigned SPPO, SrPPO, PPOII or PPOI on case at least once a
month during the period of probation at such time and place as may be specified by the
Probation Office.

Other Conditions. - The Probation order may also require the probationer, in appropriate
cases, to:
(a) cooperate with his program of probation treatment and supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment
without prior written approval of the CPPO;
(d) undergo medical, or psychological, or clinical, or drug or psychiatric examinations
and treatment and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) comply with a program of payment of civil liability to the offended party or his
heirs, when required by the Trial Court as embodied in its decision or resolution;
(f) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(g) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of
persons on probation;
(h) refrain from visiting houses of ill - repute;
(i) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(j) permit the Supervising Probation Officer on case or an authorized social workers
to visit his home and place of work;
(k) reside at premises approved by the Trial Court and not to change his residence
without prior written approval of said court; and/or
(l) satisfy any other conditions related to his rehabilitation into a useful citizen which
is not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.

Purpose. - The primary purposes of probation supervision are:

(a) to ensure the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions specified in
the Probation Order and the prescribed probation treatment and supervision
program/plan;

(b) to manage the process of the probationer's rehabilitation and re-

integration into the community; and
(c) to provide guidance for the probationer's transformation and development into a
useful citizen for his eventual reintegration to the mainstream of society.