Ma. Ana Fatima R.

Tolentino LEGAL MEDICINE

L-150195 Reaction Paper
August 31, 2019 Atty. Macalinao

Good Conduct, Good Law?

6 years ago, a retributive law was enacted which aimed to give convicts a
second chance in life. 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, such as Article
29 (Preventive Imprisonment), Article 94 (Partial Extinction of Criminal
Liability), Article 97 (Allowance for Good Conduct), Article 98 (Special
Time Allowance for Loyalty) and Article 99 (Who Grants Time
Allowances). 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.

2 weeks ago, all hell broke loose as the alleged August 20 release of
Mayor Sanchez, the convicted rape-slayer of Eileen Sarmenta, sparked
outrage because his Good Conduct, while in prison, will allow him to
walk free.

The crux of the controversy is whether or not those convicted of heinous

crimes should benefit from the GCTA. If you look at the law, the
amended Article 29 in the last paragraph, the law is clear: “…..Provided,
finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of
this Act….”
The Resolution penned by Justice Davide against Sanchez best described
the heinous crimes committed, to wit: “And so we come to hear another
tale of woe, of an infamous public figure and his minions indicted for
having raped and killed a young lady and a budding lad, of these victims
who had led short obscure lives that earned an equally ignominous end,
and of a criminal enterprise so despicable only the unthinking beasts can
orchestrate. It was, indeed, a plot seemingly hatched in hell. And let it not
be said that the full protection of the law had been deprived appellants.
Even a beast cannot deny this.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.

In addition, each of the appellants having been found guilty of seven (7)
counts of rape with homicide and considering that existing jurisprudence
pegs the amount of indemnity for the death…” If there was a word more
vile than heinous, this case would fit the bill. Sanchez without a doubt,
committed a heinous crime, therefore he must not be released.

It was also alleged that Sanchez was to walk free based on Good Conduct
as provided for in the amended “Article 94. Partial extinction of criminal
liability. – Criminal liability is extinguished partially: "3. For good conduct
allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive
imprisonment or serving his sentence." Sanchez while detained had a
number of misdemeanors, which again, disqualified him for time
allowance to be credited under GCTA.

In the seemingly innocuous trend of social media, it is easy to be blinded

by the news and opinions of people. As a student of law, it is our legal
duty to be critical and apply the law for all its intents and purposes.
Despite the mundane reactions of the community, I would like to believe
that the intent of GCTA is good and it can be a good law as it adheres to
the time honored principle that penal statutes must be favorable to the
accused. Upon reading the law in its original text, its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, and as to concurring to its retroactive application and
yes, favoring the accused, SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen agreed
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.” Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court
granted the petition and made the GCTA law retroactive.

Apparently, almost 2,000 inmates have been released due to the GCTA,
even the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) inmates who testified against detained
Senator Leila de Lima may also benefit from the recomputation of
sentence to reduce prison terms. But due to the backlash of the GCTA
the law is now open for review and now qualified convicts are affected by
its pending investigation.

Indeed, it is necessary to determine whether the criterion used in the

implementing rules of the GCTA are consistent with the very law it seeks
to implement. Like any other law, legislators must bear in mind that
convicts are still people, willing to be reformed and to have a second
chance in life. But more importantly, like any other law; it must be fair
and just. It must be stringent as to its mandate for it will affect the life
and liberty of people that the law seeks to protect.