https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10592_2013.

html

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.

"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."

Page 1
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:"
Page 2
"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 (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

President of the Senate 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 (Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP

Acting Senate Secretary Secretary General
House of Representatives

Approved: MAY 29 2013

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines

https://philippineprisons.com/2013/07/12/what-does-good-conduct-time-allowance-means/

Page 3
WHAT DOES GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE MEANS

Good conduct time allowance or GCTA is the most important alphabetical representation to the
prisoner. It is earned through his demeanour while serving time in the prison system. It is
something that is immediately reflected on his prison record as a tentative computation on the
timeline of his incarceration.

Barring any unfortunate incident, the prisoner deserves his freedom in a period of time, which is not
according to the actual calendar date but rather on the legal correctional timetable. On top of said
prison sentence reduction scheme, another law was passed (RA 10592). It would add more days
that would reduce further the sentence, and that which is reckoned as jail time.

Let me simplify. If on a stretch an inmate earns 15 days off from every month of his penalty on a
regular basis before, the recent law would add more days. Hence, a prisoner will earn up to 45
days more for every month of his incarceration.

The computation would look like this. If a person is sentenced to more than 20 years, and from the
start of his incarceration he has served 10 years, as computed following the time allowance provided
for by law has been used (45 days off monthly), he has already satisfied and served out his penalty
already. That means that the prisoner will see freedom earlier, assuming that he has never been
involved in any prison infraction or has committed any offense during the period he is serving time.
Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as an act amending Articles 29, 94,97, 98 and 99 of Act no.
3815 authorises the credit of preventive imprisonment and a revised schedule of good conduct time
allowance in the initial computation should a penalty is handed down.

The law further allows the Director of Corrections, Chief of BJMP, Warden (provincial, district,
municipal or city jail to grant allowances for good conduct. Previously, it is the Director of
Corrections who is the only one authorised to grant such reduction scheme.

The provision in the computation procedure on the reduction scheme for good conduct/ behaviour
incentive has the following features:

 First two years of imprisonment, 20 days off for each month.

 Third and Fifth year, 23 days off.
 Following year up to 10th year, 25 days off.
 Eleventh and successive years, 30 days off.

At any time when his services includes teaching, study or mentoring, additional 15 days off.
Appeals made by prisoner do not disturb entitlement of good conduct allowance.

The law (RA 10592) is a serious correctional provision because any officer who fails to comply with
the application of said law is liable to be imprisoned (one year imprisonment), a fine of P100,000
and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. Now that is something.

Page 4
To date, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the law is still in the drawing board but
the entire correctional system is already busy formulating the infrastructure for its eventual
application. I say that unlike before where computation was done manually through the dexterity
of those assigned to the task, now it could only be done swiftly through a software program. Once
encoded and provided with an equation, it is technology that would virtually process each case and
in a whiff, provide the prisoner the exact date when his penalty would be over.

The law would definitely improve morale and promote hope and build confidence in the true
mandate of rehabilitation in correctional administration.

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/238647-timeline-gcta-law-controversy-stirred

MANILA, Philippines – The Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law has been at the center of
controversy after initial news about the possible early release of convicted murderer-rapist Antonio
Sanchez broke.

As government officials backtracked on cutting short the prison term of Sanchez, the debate has
now focused on whether or not those convicted of heinous crimes should benefit from the GCTA.
But how did the law come to be? What are the arguments for amendments?

December 1930
The Revised Penal Code is signed into law. Chapter 2 lays out the specifics of "partial extinction of
criminal liability," including conditional pardon, commutation of sentence, and good conduct
allowances.

November 5, 2012
The Senate passes Senate Bill No. 3064 which amends several articles of the Revised Penal Code.

January 18, 2013

The House of Representatives passes House Bill 417 which amends Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.

May 29, 2013

Then-president Benigno Aquino III signs Republic Act No. 10592 or the Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA) law, which amended several articles under the Revised Penal Code, including
Article 97, which lays out the allowance for good conduct for persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).
The GCTA law allows for a reduction of sentences of PDLs, depending on how well they abide by
rules and regulations inside “any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention center or any other
local jail.”

March 26, 2014

Page 5
The law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) document is released. Penned by then-justice
secretary Leila de Lima and interior secretary Mar Roxas, the IRR provides for a prospective
application of the GCTA law.

Prospective application is seen in Section 4 of the IRR, which provides “for new procedures and
standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance" and requires "the creation of a
Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee.”

The IRR takes effect on April 18 of the same year.

June 18, 2014

At least 13 Bilibid inmates, represented by lawyer Michael Evangelista, file a petition for certiorari
and prohibition against Roxas and De Lima, contesting the prospective application of the GCTA Law.
The inmates include Venancio Roxas, Saturnino Paras, Edgardo Manuel, Heminildo Cruz, Allan
Tejada, Roberto Marquez, Julito Mondejar, Armando Cabuang, Jonathan Crisanto, Edgar Echenique,
Janmark Saracho, Josenel Alvaran, and Crisencio Neri Jr.

July 14, 2014

Lawyer Rene Saguisag files a petition-in-intervention, saying that RA 10592’s legislative history
shows no intent of being prospective in character. The High Court grants the leave to intervene.
October 21, 2014
Three NBP inmates file another petition-in-intervention against the provision. Inmates William
Montinola, Fortunato Visto, and Arsenio Cabanilla are represented by the Free Legal Assistance
Group (FLAG).

The provision, FLAG said at the time, “discriminates, without any reasonable basis, against those
who would have been benefited from the retroactive application of the law.”

October 24, 2014

Ten inmates at the NBP’s Maximum Security Compound file a petition for certiorari and
prohibition against the prospective application of the law, saying that the IRR was “issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

June 25, 2019

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court grants the petition and makes the GCTA law retroactive.
In his concurring opinion, SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen says that the prospective provision of
the 2014 IRR “implies that all inmates detained or convicted prior to its effectivity can no longer be
rehabilitated for a successful reintegration into society, effectively trampling upon their dignity as
human beings.”

August 20, 2019

Reporters receive unverified information that convicted rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez might
soon be walking free. (READ: TIMELINE: DOJ backtracks on possible early release of Antonio
Sanchez)

Sanchez was convicted in 1995 for the rape and murder of Eileen Sarmenta and murder of Allan
Gomez – both University of the Philippines-Los Baños students – and in 1999, for the double murder
of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa. He has been in Bilibid prison for 25 years.

Page 6
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra tells reporters that Sanchez "may actually be released," and, in
another instance, "is very likely for release.”

"That benefits lahat ng mga nakakulong na preso ngayon kaya isa sa mga magbe-benefit doon ay si
Mayor Sanchez... pati siya mae-entitle duon sa computation ng Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA),” he says in a telephone conference.

(That benefits all the inmates, so one of the beneficiaries will be Mayor Sanchez. Even he will be
entitled to the computation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance.)

August 22, 2019

Senate President Vicente Sotto III files Senate Resolution No. 107 which seeks a review of RA 10592
with a view of amending it. Senator Panfilo Lacson supports the plan to amend the law.
(READ: Amid Sanchez news, senators split on amending reduced prison term law)

Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, the justice secretary at the time Sanchez was convicted,
dismisses the need for amendments, saying the law is already “good." He pins the blame on the
Supreme Court which decided that a certain provision was unconstitutional.

After a massive public backlash, Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director General Nicanor Faeldon
says that while Sanchez is qualified to avail of the GCTA, he might still have to stay in Bilibid for
several more years because of misdemeanors he reportedly committed. (LISTEN: [PODCAST] Ang
batas na puwedeng magpalaya sa rapist-murderer na si Antonio Sanchez)
August 23, 2019

Guevarra explains that the wording of Section 1 and Section 3 of the law makes only the inmates
eligible for credit of preventive imprisonment (CPI, or the period of imprisonment prior to conviction)
also eligible for GCTA (applicable only to post-conviction imprisonment).

To Guevarra, because those charged with heinous crimes are not eligible for CPI, then they are also
not supposed to benefit from the GCTA. “It’s been a tough process of interpreting the wordings of a
law that has certain ambiguities in its provisions. In the end, however, it is the spirit and the
intention of the law that guided us in taking a position,” Guevarra says.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo echoes Guevarra in a press conference, saying that “the
inevitable conclusion is that all those convicted of a heinous crime, including Mr Antonio Sanchez,
would be ineligible and disqualified from availing the benefits of the GCTA.”

In a Rappler column, human rights lawyer and former SC spokesperson Ted Te says that there is a
need for more objective criteria to determine good conduct. (READ: [OPINION | Deep Dive] What
the GCTA law is and what it needs)

He writes that “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.

Raymund Narag, an expert on criminal justice, writes in his column that “there are sufficient legal
and procedural remedies to make sure that the law will not be abused by the rich and powerful.”
(READ: [OPINION] Media sensationalism, bureaucratic ineptitude, the common tao's quest for
justice)
Page 7
August 24, 2019
Guevarra says the DOJ is “considering seriously” the need to suspend the processing of the GCTA of
convicts pending a review of guidelines for the early release of inmates.

Those who are deserving to be freed early, he adds, “really have to wait a little.” (READ: Beyond
Sanchez: How to improve the Good Conduct Time Allowance law)

August 25, 2019

Guevarra says the DOJ hopes the Supreme Court or Congress will be able to clarify whether or not
inmates who are convicted of heinous crimes can benefit from the GCTA law.

“The DOJ will be glad to have this issue resolved with clarity and finality either by a congressional
amendment of its own act or by an interpretation rendered by the Supreme Court in a proper case
brought before it,” he says.

August 26, 2019

Guevarra reiterates that the processing of early release of inmates under the good conduct time
allowance (GCTA) law is briefly suspended.

"Very temporary lang, na i-suspend ang pag-process ng GCTAs para mabigyan ng pagkakataon ang
DOJ, BuCor, ang BJMP (Bureau of Jail Management and Penology) na ma-review 'yung mga existing
guidelines sa pagbibigay ng GCTAs, pati mga internal procedures," Guevarra tells DZBB.

(It will be a very temporary suspension of the processing of GCTAs to give a chance to the DOJ,
BuCor, and BJMP to review existing guidelines for granting GCTAs, including internal procedures.)
Drilon calls the suspension a "welcome development."

August 27, 2019

AKO Bicol Representative Alfredo Garbin Jr files House Resolution No. 260 which seeks a
congressional investigation to help clarify whether or not inmates who are convicted of heinous
crimes should benefit from the GCTA law.

In his resolution, Garbin says that the law “is a good law” but that “there is a need to determine
whether the criterion used in the implementing rules of the law is consistent with the very law it
seeks to implement.” – with reports from Lian Buan/Rappler.com

Page 8