Scribd
Upload
566 views3 pages

GCTA Law

The Supreme Court declared invalid a provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law that required its benefits to only apply prospectively. This meant that prisoners already serving sentences would not qualify for reduced sentences under the new time allowance rules. The Supreme Court ruled this violated the Philippine penal code, which states lighter penalties in new laws must apply retroactively to benefit those already convicted. As a result of this ruling, all prisoners, regardless of when they were sentenced, may now qualify for reduced sentences under the time allowance benefits in the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law.

Uploaded by

RLO1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
566 views3 pages

GCTA Law

The Supreme Court declared invalid a provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law that required its benefits to only apply prospectively. This meant that prisoners already serving sentences would not qualify for reduced sentences under the new time allowance rules. The Supreme Court ruled this violated the Philippine penal code, which states lighter penalties in new laws must apply retroactively to benefit those already convicted. As a result of this ruling, all prisoners, regardless of when they were sentenced, may now qualify for reduced sentences under the time allowance benefits in the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law.

Uploaded by

RLO1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

The new IRR of Republic Act 10592 or the GCTA law now categorically excludes

heinous crime convicts like Sanchez from the benefits of the GCTA Law.

Here are the salient amendments in the new IRR:

1. Recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, those charged with heinous crimes and
an accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence has failed to
surrender voluntarily before a court of law, are excluded from good conduct time
allowance under RA 10592 (Section 2, Rule IV)

2. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts, but who
were convicted before the law became effective in 2013 shall be entitled to good
conduct time allowance under the Revised Penal Code (2nd paragraph, Section 1, Rule
XIII)

3. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts, and who
were convicted after the law became effective in 2013, shall not be entitled to any type
of good conduct time allowance (3rd paragraph, Section 1, Rule XIII)

The Supreme Court declared invalid Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing


Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592 in so far as the said IRR
provided for the prospective application of the grant of time allowance of
prisoners for good conduct, study, teaching, and mentoring service, and
loyalty.

With this, all prisoners regardless of whether already serving his/her


sentence or undergoing preventive imprisonment may qualify for the
reduction of their sentence pursuant to the time allowances under R.A.
10592.

The decision was in connection with the following consolidated cases:


Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.;
Atty. 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. 212719).
Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No.
214637)
R.A. 10592 which was passed into law on 29 May 2013 amended Articles
29[1], 94[2], 97[3], 98[4], and 99[5] of the Revised Penal Code (Act No.
3815 or “RPC”).

On 26 March 2014, an IRR was jointly issued by then Justice secretary,


Leila H. De Lima, and then DILG secretary Manuel A. Roxas II. However,
Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR directed the prospective application of the
grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study,
teaching, and mentoring (TASTM) and special time allowance for loyalty
(STAL) to prisoners.

The grant of time allowance of study, teaching and mentoring and of


special time allowance for loyalty shall be prospective in application as
these privileges are likewise subject to the management, screening and
evaluation of the MSEC.

The petitioners assail the validity of the said provision of the IRR on the
ground that it violates Article 22 of the RPC.

In the decision, the SC took note of the definition of “penal laws” to be:
“Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions
defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation.”
Thus the SC 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:

“While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe


a penalty as it addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional
system, its provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the
punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction of the length of the
penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the
detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application of
Article 22 of the RPC.
“The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592
actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners and those who are
similarly situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their
respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making more
onerous the punishment for the crimes committed. Depriving them of time
off to which they are justly entitled as a practical matter results in extending
their sentence and increasing their punishment. Evidently, this
transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the RPC.”

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy