RILLERA AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

San Fernando City, La Union

INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Atty. Jane Doe, Junior Partner

From: Bianka Sylvee Dumlao, Associate
Re: Antonio Sanchez: Early Release Sought
Date: October 25,2019
_________________________________________________________________

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether or not Sanchez may be entitled for an early

release based on the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law
and its Implementing Rules and Regulation.

BRIEF ANSWER

No. Sanchez is not entitled to the privileges provided by the

GCTA Law. Sec 1 of the said law expressly provided that
persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the
coverage of the aforementioned law.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Antonio Sanchez was convicted for the rape of the

University of the Philippines student Mary Eileen Santos and
murder of her boyfriend Alan Gomez. The court sentenced
Sanchez to serve seven terms of reclusion perpetua for the
said crimes (People vs Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45,
October 18, 2001)
In August 1999, the court likewise convicted Sanchez for the
double murder of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa. The penalty
imposed by the Court against Sanchez for this crime was
two terms of reclusion perpetua (People vs Sanchez, G.R.
No. 131116)

During his stay in prison, Sanchez repeatedly violated the

prison rules and committed criminal offenses. Reports
revealed that in 2006, a search operation conducted by
the Muntinlupa Police in the jail cell of Sanchez yielded that
he was in possession of shabu and Marijuana.

Sometime in 2010, Sanchez was again in the news after

P1.5 million worth of shabu was discovered stashed in one
of the Virgin Mary statutes inside his jail cell.

Lastly, in another raid of the Maximum security

compound, a flat-screen television, an air conditioner, and
a refrigerator were found in the cell of Sanchez which are
violations of the prison rules.

APPLICABLE STATUTES

RA 10592 otherwise known as the Good Conduct Time

Allowance Law which recognizes humane and rehabilitative
principles of criminal justice which aims to facilitate the
reintegration of detainees to society.

Section 1 of RA 10592, which tackles who is eligible for

"credit of preventive imprisonment" or CPI, the pre-
conviction jail time of a person charged with a non-
bailable offense. It provides guidelines on how a preventive
imprisonment period can be deducted from jail time.

RA 7659 which provides that crimes punishable by death

under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and
norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society.

Rule III Sec 1 of the IRR of the GCTA Law which defined
“good conduct” as 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 regulation

DISCUSSION

Section 1 says that "recidivists, habitual delinquents,

escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are
excluded from the coverage of this Act." Foremost, Sanchez
was convicted of “rape” and multiple “murders”. These
crimes are clearly heinous within the meaning of RA 10592.

But what are heinous crimes? According to Department of

Justice (DOJ) Undersecretary Deo Marco, they are
“constrained to refer to the definition stipulation under the
death penalty law.” Republic Act 7659, the law signed in
1993 and which imposed the death penalty, says that
heinous crimes include: treason, piracy in general and
mutiny on the high seas in Philippine waters, qualified piracy,
qualified bribery, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping
and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons, destructive arson, rape,
importation, distribution, manufacturing and possession of
illegal drugs. In which Sanchez have already been
convicted of the two crimes mentioned from the
enumeration. He then therefore no longer hold an
entitlement to such privilege granted by the GCTA Law.

However, the foregoing provision in the IRR does not

contain the same disqualifications as enumerated in the last
paragraph of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Section 1 of R.A 10592. It read as follows:

Section 3. Who are Disqualified. – The grant of credit for

preventive imprisonment shall not apply to the following: a.
An accused who is recidivist as defined under Article 14 (9),
Chapter III, Book 1 of the Revised Penal Code; b. An
accused who has been convicted previously twice or more
than times of crime; and c. An accused who, upon being
summoned for the execution of his sentence, has failed to
surrender voluntarily before a court of law.

It implies that even persons charged with heinous crimes are

qualified with the privileges provided by the GCTA Law.
Nevertheless, Contreras (2019) pointed out that IRRs cannot
exceed the law.

Moreover, Rule III Sec 1 of the IRR of the GCTA Law refers to
“good conduct” as 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 regulation.

In contrast, according to Philippine News Agency as

reported by Filane Cervantes on August 22, 2019, Senate
Minority Leader Franklin Drilon filed a resolution seeking a
congressional inquiry into the eligibility of convicted rapist,
former Calauan, Laguna Mayor Antonio Sanchez for early
release from prison. "Sanchez's alleged good behavior is
questionable because in 2006 he was charged with
possession of illegal drugs after a prison guard allegedly
found him to be keeping a packet of 'shabu' and
marijuana along with other illegal drugs paraphernalia,"
Drilon said in the resolution.

Hence, Sanchez repeatedly violated prison rules which

indicates that he has no intent to rehabilitate and comply
with the prison rule as presented in the House Resolution
Number 260 dated August 27, 2019.

CONCLUSION

The primary factor in this case is whether Sanchez may be

entitled for an early release as provided by the GCTA Law.
While it appears that he may be entitled since the IRR of
the said law is silent on the case of those already
convicted, we cannot disregard the fact that he has
committed heinous crime which disqualifies him from
enjoying the privileges granted by the said law.
Although the intent of the law is rehabilitative and not
retributive, good conduct must always be taken into
consideration. The behaviour while in prison should coincide
with the granting of the reduction of sentence, thereby
fulfilling what the law seeks to provide.