By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
NARCISO B. GUINTO, ET AL. VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 249027 (APRIL 3, 2024): GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE CAN BE CREDITED EVEN TO THOSE CONVICTED AND SERVING SENTENCE FOR HEINOUS CRIMES
Petitioners are inmates of the New Bilibid Prison’s Maximum Security Compound and were convicted of various heinous crimes. They are assailing for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated on a class suit the 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10592 (RA 10592) which excludes persons convicted of heinous crimes from the application of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA).
The controversy stemmed from the release of some of the Petitioners by virtue of certificates of discharge but were ordered or asked to surrender by then President Rodrigo R. Duterte without any judicial warrant or order. Though not stated in the case, if you will recall, the call by former President Duterte for the surrender of released inmates was because of public outrage of the release of the late Mayor of Calauan Laguna, Antonio Sanchez, convicted of the rape slay of college students by virtue of GCTA credits.
The procedural issue settled is the argument raised by the Solicitor General that the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Supreme Court is improper since the Department of Justice (DOJ) merely implemented its 2019 IRR of RA 10592 on GCTA and did not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Citing Araullo, et al. vs. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 209207, July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court held that remedies of certiorari and prohibition may also be used as remedy to restrain any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of Government even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court held that the 2019 IRR of RA 10592 is invalid as it expanded the law itself when it made a qualification as to applicability of the GCTA disqualifying those who were convicted of heinous crimes. The provision on partial extinction of criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 10592 also includes “for good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he (or she) is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his (or her) sentence.”
Thus, the Court held that the following may earn GCTA credits: 1) those offenders who are not recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and charged with heinous crimes under Article 29 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10592; and 2) those offenders who are already convicted, regardless if they are recidivists, habitual delinquent, escapees, or convicted or heinous crimes, so long as they are in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any local jail pursuant to Article 97 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10592.
The Supreme Court granted the Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition of the Petitioners nullifying Rule IV, Section 2, Rule VII, Section 2, and the last paragraph of Rule XIII, Section 1 of the 2019 IRR of RA 10592 in so far as it disqualifies persons deprived of liberty who are subsequently convicted by final judgment of heinous crimes and ordered the respondents to compute their GCTA in accordance with the ruling.