Time allowances awarded, even erroneously, can’t be taken back —rights lawyers

The discussion set into motion by news of the possibility of an early release for convicted rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez has widened to include the potential consequences of a 2013 law to thousands of prisoners — and now even to nearly 2,000 people who have already walked free.

After the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) revealed it had released 1,914 prisoners convicted of "heinous crimes," like rape, murder, and kidnapping with illegal detention, who served shortened sentences because of good conduct, presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said they should be sent back to jail until they have served their full prison terms.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra has not commented on the legality of Panelo's remark. "We have to study this question very carefully," he told reporters. "This is a very complicated legal and factual issue."

Malacanang and the Department of Justice share the view that prisoners convicted of heinous crimes should not get deductions from their sentence in exchange for good conduct, or what the law calls good conduct time allowances (GCTA).

But the 1,914 heinous crime convicts were released from 2014 to 2019, when the BuCor said it interpreted the law on GCTAs as covering all convicted prisoners without exceptions.

Authorities on Friday started a 10-day review of the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 10592, the law providing for time allowances for prisoners. One of its goals, Guevarra said, is to determine what to do with heinous crimes convicts who might have already been released.

They may include four Chinese nationals, allegedly convicted drug lords, who were reportedly released from the New Bilibid Prison based on GCTAs last June and are now in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration. Their deportation has been held pending the completion of the guidelines review.

Time allowances 'shall not be revoked'

Human rights lawyer, criminal law professor and former Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te pointed out that the law "expressly" says GCTAs granted cannot be taken away and that "its consequences, once set in place, cannot be reversed."

He was referring to Article 99 of the Revised Penal Code, which was amended by RA 10592 and empowers the chiefs of the BuCor and of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and jail wardens to grant time allowances. It says: "Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked."

Even an "erroneous" application of the law, but one done "in good faith," to supposedly unqualified inmates "cannot justify sending back to jail those set free," Te said in a message to reporters.

RA 10592 is a penal law, according to the Supreme Court. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code says any penal law may be applied retroactively if it benefits an accused or a convict, Te said.

But instead of being beneficial, sending those released on GCTAs back to jail would be a "a retroactive application of the law in a prejudicial manner which is prohibited by the Constitution as an ex post facto application of law," he said.

Ex post facto laws are ones that punish crimes that were not illegal when they were committed. The Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution prohibits the enactment of any ex post facto law or bill of attainder.

Justification

There are three ways for criminal liability to be partially extinguished under Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code, which was also amended by RA 10592: conditional pardon, commutation of sentence, and good conduct allowances.

Te said conditional pardon is the "only item" under Article 94 "that can justify sending back the convict to jail"  — that is if he or she violates the condition for the pardon.

Human rights lawyer Edre Olalia, the president of the National Union of Peoples' Lawyers, for his part, said prisoners who were legally — "even if arguably mistakenly" — released can be sent back only if there is a legal ground to rearrest them.

He said the only crimes that may apply in the situation is escaping or evading service of sentence, "which is not the case because there is no intention to do so."

He added that the released prisoners may argue they have a "vested right" that may not be revoked "especially if it is not their fault or mistake."

"That is why at the end of the day, immediate as well as fundamental reforms in the penal and justice system must be in place," Olalia told GMA News Online.

"Can you imagine telling the freed prisoner, 'oops'? Then there is no stability and integrity in the process, even if flawed," he said. — MDM, GMA News