Republic of the Philippines CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Metro Manila Fifteenth Congress Third Regular Session Begun and

held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-third day of July, two thousand twelve. REPUBLIC ACT No. 10592 AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they 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 "2. 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.1wphi1 "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 is absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio 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 lestierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment." Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows: "ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially: "1. By conditional pardon; "2. By commutation of the sentence; and "3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence." Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows: "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 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 reduction 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; and "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." Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows: "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." Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:" "ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked." Section 6. Penal Clause. Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby mandated. As such, the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment, a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be imposed against any public officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act. Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall within sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations on the classification system for good conduct and time allowances, as may be necessary, to implement the provisions of this Act.

Section 8. Separability Clause. If any part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting. Section 9. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. Section 10. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) new papers of general circulation. Approved,

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE President of the Senate

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3064 and House Bill No. 417 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on November 5, 2012 and January 28, 2013, respectively.

(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELLEN Acting Senate Secretary

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP Secretary General House of Representatives

Approved: MAY 29 2013 (Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III President of the Philippines Bill granting good conduct time allowance for inmates OKd November 7, 2008 5:25am 2 0 0 593 MANILA, Philippines - A bill granting good conduct time allowance to prisoners who participate in literacy, skills and values development programs has been approved on third and final reading in the House of Representatives. House Bill 4925 provides that a prisoner can earn time credit for satisfactory progress towards earning a post-graduate or college degree, high school or elementary grade

diploma, vocational or technical skill or values development certificate. The bill also covers prisoners who get credits for teaching subjects or courses in the mentioned programs, according to a press statement posted on the House of Representatives website. Under the proposed measure, participants in the program will be provided a maximum time credit of 15 days for every month of study time. The measure covers prisoners in detention facilities and those who are serving their sentences by virtue of final judgment. Prisoners whose sentences are under appeal could also be entitled to a good conduct time allowance. The approved measure is a consolidation of bills authored by Reps. Raul Gonzalez Jr. (Iloilo City), Teodoro Locsin Jr. (Makati) and Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro City). Gonzalez said increasing literacy and skills standards and strengthening moral values of prisoners would facilitate their integration into mainstream society as reformed and productive citizens. "The granting of good conduct time allowance will result in the reduction of their incarceration period. This translates to a decrease in the overall cost of correction through jail decongestion," Gonzalez said. He added that aside from decongesting the prisons, it would prevent jailbreaks and riots as prisoners devote their time and energies in productive endeavors. For his part, Locsin said the bill can turn reformed and rehabilitated prisoners into productive members of society again. He said giving prisoners an incentive to lessen their sentences by showing that they are capable of and willing to consistently behave humanely in a prison environment is a giant leap towards the goal of total reformation.

The bill mandates the Department of Education (DepEd), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority and other recognized institutions and organizations, to conduct such programs. - GMANews.TV History

John Augustus, known as the Father of Probation, first asked the courts to release a prisoner to his care in 1841. By 1852, he had bailed out 1,100 adults and many more children. By 1878, Massachusetts had enacted probation legislation. Other states followed suit, and by 1930, all states, except Wyoming, passed legislation enforcing juvenile probation. Philosophy Augustus operated on the basic philosophy that criminals can be rehabilitated in the community, given the correct opportunity. Probation officers today use this same philosophy as they work with their clients to motivate them toward a crime-free lifestyle. Probation officers enforce the probation terms set forth by the court as they work toward defendant rehabilitation. Concept

The concept of probation provides the offender with the opportunity of community release as long as she obeys the laws and the conditions of her probation. In addition to probation, Augustus developed the concepts of presentence investigation, the caseworkmanagement style of probation and continued communication with the courts.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7369058_philosophy-conceptprobation.html#ixzz2kJCdnzk5

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE Latin for "at first view." Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Below's an example dealing with employment discrimination claims.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII by establishing that (1) he or she belongs to a racial minority; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) he or she was rejected for the position despite his or her qualifications; and (4) the position remained open after his or her rejection and the employer continued to seek applications from other people with similar qualifications to the plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). In Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that"[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous." After the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's rejection. Id. If the employer sustains the burden, the plaintiff then has the opportunity to present evidence showing that the employer's stated reason for the rejection was merely pretextual. Id.; see also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 807; Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437 ("The defendant's articulation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason serves . . . to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to raise a genuine factual question as to whether the proffered reason is pretextual.") (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008). The third step does not require that a plaintiff prove that "he was rejected because of his protected status." The plaintiff must only show in step three that "despite his qualifications, he was rejected." McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The two standards are quite different. The McDonnell Douglas test merely requires that a plaintiff raise an inference of disparate treatment to establish a prima facie case, not actual proof of such treatment. Under McDonnell Douglas, to establish his prima facie case, the plaintiff need not prove that discrimination was the motivating factor in his dismissal. All he must do is raise an inference that such misconduct occurred. A plaintiff can also establish a prima facie case by "offering evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criteria illegal under [Title VII]." Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 (1977)); see Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff can establish prima facie case of disparate treatment without satisfying McDonnell Douglas test if he or she provides evidence suggesting rejection was based on discriminatory criteria), amended, 784 F.2d 1407 (1986). A plaintiff who provides such evidence for his or her prima facie case may be

able to survive summary judgment on this evidence alone. Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008. Although "the mere existence of a prima facie case, based on the minimum evidence necessary to raise a McDonnell Douglas presumption, does not preclude summary judgment," Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994), "the plaintiff [who has established a prima facie case] need produce very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact" as to pretext. Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437. In fact, any indication of discriminatory motive . . . may suffice to raise a question that can only be resolved by a factfinder. Once a prima facie case is established . . . summary judgment for the defendant will ordinarily not be appropriate on any ground relating to the merits because the crux of a Title VII dispute is the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination. Id. at 1438 (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1009) (citation omitted). Thus, burden at the summary judgment stage is not great. The first blush; the first view or appearance of the business; as, the holder of a bill of exchange, indorsed in blank, is prima facie its owner. Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it. Philosophy & Concept of Probation ADVANTAGES OF PROBATION Probation prevents crime by offering freedom and aid only to those offenders who arenot likely to assault society again. It protects society by placing under close supervision non-dangerous offenders whileundergoing treatment and rehabilitation in the community. It conforms with modern humanistic trends in penology. It prevents youthful or first offenders from turning into hardened criminals. It is a measure of cutting enormous expense in maintaining jails. It reduces recidivism and overcrowding in jails and prisons.

It reduces the burden on the police forces and institutions of feeding and guardingdetainees. It gives the first and light offenders a second chance in life a n d p r o v i d e s a n opportunity for the reformation of penitent offenders. It makes the offenders productive or taxpayers instead of taxeaters. It restores to successful probationers their civil rights lost in view of the offense. It has been proven effective in developing countries that have adopted i