SC Rules In Favor of Prisoners and Inmates Thus Justice Peralta, in granting the petition and declaring the IRR

ice Peralta, in granting the petition and declaring the IRR invalid in so far as it provides
for the prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM, and STAL, stated in the decision:
July 1, 2019
“While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe a penalty as it
The Supreme Court in their En Banc session on 25 June 2019 and in a decision penned by addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions have the
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, declared invalid Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction
Rules and Regulations (“IRR”) of Republic Act No. 10592 (“R.A. 10592”) in so far as the said IRR of the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the
provided for the prospective application of the grant of time allowance of prisoners for: i.) detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application of Article 22 of the
good conduct, ii.) study, teaching, and mentoring service, and iii.) loyalty. RPC.
As a consequence, all prisoners regardless of whether already serving his/her sentence or “The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 actually works to
undergoing preventive imprisonment may qualify for the reduction of their sentence pursuant the disadvantage of petitioners and those who are similarly situated. It precludes the decrease
to the time allowances under R.A. 10592. in the penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making
The decision was in connection with the following consolidated cases: more onerous the punishment for the crimes committed. Depriving them of time off to which
Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; Atty. Rene A.V. they are justly entitled as a practical matter results in extending their sentence and increasing
Saguisag, Sr. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; William M. Montinola, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De their punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the RPC.”
Lima, et al. (G.R. No. 212719). With the said ruling of the Supreme Court, and considering the increased time allowances for
Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No. 214637) GCTA, TASTM, and STAL under R.A. 10592 given to qualified inmates, there will be a substantial
reduction in their respective penalties; which eventually will result in the decongestion of the
R.A. 10592 which was passed into law on 29 May 2013 amended Articles 29[1], 94[2], 97[3],
jail system in the country.
98[4], and 99[5] of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815 or “RPC”). The important
amendments under RA 10592, among others, are as follows: The court voted as follows:
1.) It expanded the application of the good conduct time allowance for prisoners even during The following Justices voted to grant the petition –
preventive imprisonment. 1. Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
2.) It increased the number of days that may be credited for good conduct time allowance. 2. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
3.) It allowed additional deduction of 15 days for each month of study, teaching, or mentoring 3. Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
service. 4. Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
4.) It expanded the special time allowance for loyalty and made it applicable even during 5. Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
preventive imprisonment.
6. Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
On 26 March 2014 an IRR was jointly issued by the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Leila
H. De Lima, and the Secretary of the Department of Interior, Manuel A. Roxas II. However, 7. Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Cagouia
Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR directed the prospective application of the grant of good conduct 8. Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, teaching, and mentoring (TASTM) and 9. Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) to prisoners. Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR reads:
10. Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
Section 4. Prospective Application. – Considering that these Rules provide for new procedures
and standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance as provided in 11. Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
Section 4 of Rule V hereof and require the creation of a Management, Screening and 12. Justice Rosmari D. Carandang
Evaluation Committee (MSEC) as provided in Section 3 of the same Rule, the grant of good 13. Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
conduct time allowance under Republic Act 10592 shall be prospective in application.
14. Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
The grant of time allowance of study, teaching and mentoring and of special time allowance
The following Justice took no part –
for loyalty shall be prospective in application as these privileges are likewise subject to the
management, screening and evaluation of the MSEC. 1. Justice Francis H. Jardeleza (on official leave)
The petitioners assail the validity of the said provision of the IRR on the ground that it violates (G.R. No. 212719, Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; Atty.
Article 22 of the RPC, which provides: Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; William M. Montinola, et al. vs. Sec.
Leila M. De Lima, et al.; G.R. No. 214637, Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar
al. June 25, 2019)
as they favor the persons guilty of the felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is
defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws
a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. [1] ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. –
In the decision, the Supreme Court took note of the definition of “penal laws” to be: “Penal Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the
laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions defining offenses and service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they
prescribing penalties for their violation.” have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times
of any crime; and
 When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have
failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be
credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted
from thirty (30) years.
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and
his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance:
Provided, however, that if the accused us absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the
trial, the court may motu propio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, that
recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are
excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be releases after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined words)
[2] ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal Liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowance which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence. (Amendments in bold, italicized,
and underlined words)
[3] ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for
credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any
convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local
jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of (his) imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction
of twenty days for each month of good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed
a deduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he
shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another
deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each
month of study, teaching, or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for
good conduct. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined words)
[4] ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment
or the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code,
gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A
deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving
sentence. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined words)
[5] ART. 99. Who grants time allowances – Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the
Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, of city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct.
Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and
underlined words)
[OPINION | Deep Dive] What the GCTA law is and what it needs
While the GCTA is a good idea, the question of determining whether conduct falls under 'good
conduct' to merit the GCTA may be arbitrary sans any objective standards to measure, assess,
and rate such
Disclosure: The author is a member, and currently the Regional Coordinator for Metro Manila,
of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) which acted as counsel for the petitioners-in-
intervention William M. Montinola, Fortunato P. Visto, and Arsenio C. Cabanilla in G.R. No.
212719.
The only issue presented in the consolidated cases of Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De
Lima, et al. and Reynaldo Edago, et al.,G.R. No. 212719 and G.R. No. 214637 promulgated on
June 25, 2019 is the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of Republic Act No. 10952 (An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of The Revised Penal
Code [May 29, 2013]).
The questioned IRR provision directs that the grant of good conduct time allowance provided
in the RA 10952 be made prospective, i.e., applying only to cases after the effectivity of the
law and the IRR. Citing Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court declared
Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR invalid because Article 22 expressly makes any penal law
retroactive where it is favorable or advantageous to the accused, who is not a habitual
criminal.
When the Decision in Inmates was released, reports circulated that a former local government
official convicted of rape and murder and who had been sentenced to serve 7 reclusion
perpetua terms in 1995 would be entitled to the benefits under RA 10952 because it would
then be retroactively applied.
That is when the proverbial excrement impacted with the ventilation system.
This week’s Deep Dive looks into RA 10952, particularly on the Good Conduct Time Allowances
granted to inmates, and the consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Inmates, allowing
retroactive application of its provisions.
Forward looking laws
As a general rule, all laws operate prospectively, i.e., to situations and events that arise after
their effectivity. The rationale for this is simple – ignorance of the law excuses no one only if
everyone is informed that such a law exists.
The prospective application of laws becomes even more important when the law is a penal The Implementing Rules and Regulations to RA 10592 provided for prospective application of
law, i.e., one that defines a crime and provides a punishment for the crime. For this reason, the amended periods “(c)onsidering that these Rules provide for new procedures and
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits the imposition of any punishment for any act standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance xxx and require the
that was not punished by law before its commission; this is consistent with the constitutional creation of a Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC)...” Section 4 also
guarantee of protection against ex post facto laws under Article III, section 22 of the 1987 provided that the new benefit of time allowance for study, teaching, and mentoring and the
Constitution. special allowance for loyalty would also operated prospectively for the same reasons as the
An ex post facto law is a law that is retroactively prejudicial. For an accused or a convict, an GCTA.
example of an ex post facto penal law would be one that would make a punishment for a This was the section that was challenged before the Supreme Court, which was invalidated for
crime more severe than when the crime was first committed. Article 22 of the Revised Penal being inconsistent with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Code provides an exception to prospective application of laws and expressly allows a penal Eligibility for GCTA
law to be retroactive on only one instance: when it is pro reo (literally, “when in doubt, for the
accused”) or when it is beneficial to the accused or convict, except when the accused or While the GCTA applies to two situations – those who were preventively imprisoned and to
convict is a habitual criminal. those already convicted and serving sentence – exclusions apply only to the former, covered
by Article 29, and not to the latter, covered by Article 97. (See box below)
Good Conduct Time Allowances
“Good Conduct Time Allowances” under Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code is one way of
partially extinguishing criminal liability because the sentence imposed may be shortened.
Article 97 provides for an arithmetical formula for determining good conduct time allowances
corresponding to deduction of specific days for specific months of good behavior counted
during the duration of the service of the sentence. For instance, during “the first two years of
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
behavior during detention.”
Republic Act No. 10592 amended Article 97 by increasing the number of days of GCTA and
providing for an additional benefit of study, teaching, and mentoring service time.

p
Thus, the exclusions under Article 29 for “recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and
persons charged with heinous crimes” do not apply to Article 97, which provides no such
exclusions. (See box below)
What happens now?
What really is the effect of the SC decision in Inmates on the supposedly over 11,000 inmates
currently serving sentence, including the notorious former mayor?
Will there be a mass exodus of inmates? The answer is no.
Any release of eligible inmates would have to be based on two factual determinations and
one arithmetical computation.
The first factual determination is that they are eligible to the GCTA, i.e., under Article 29 or
Article 97. The second factual determination is that they have actually been on good
behavior within the periods specified in Article 97 to merit the GCTA.
Under the IRR, "Good Conduct" means the “conspicuous and satisfactory behavior of a
detention or convicted prisoner consisting of active involvement in rehabilitation programs,
productive participation in authorized work activities, or accomplishment of exemplary deeds
coupled with faithful obedience to all prison/jail rules and regulations.” These determinations
are to be made by the Management, Screening, and Evaluation Committee, created under
the IRR.
Assuming these two factual determinations are made, the arithmetical computation would
come in. Each eligible inmate’s GCTA would have to be applied to the respective sentence
each is serving to determine if the remaining sentence will be zero, a few weeks, months, or
years. Only if the eligible inmate’s sentence, after applying the GCTA, is zero will there be
immediate release.
The same factual determinations and arithmetical formula would apply to the former mayor,
of course.
The need for more objective criteria to determine good conduct
With all the hullabaloo that has arisen out of the possibility that the former mayor may be set
free on GCTA alone, greater scrutiny has now been trained on the Bureau of Corrections and
the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.
This is as it should be. For while the GCTA is a good idea, the question of determining whether
conduct falls under “good conduct” to merit the GCTA may be arbitrary sans any objective
standards to measure, assess, and rate such.
This is one area of reform that Congress may look into rather than to consider whether the
death penalty is an option (it is not) or whether to do away with the three-fold rule or to simply
legislate exclusions. – Rappler.com