Supreme Court Spokesman Theodore Te.
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON
MANILA, Philippines – Sending back to jail 1,914 heinous crime convicts who were released after years were shaved off their prison term for good conduct is illegal, a criminal law professor said.
According to Criminal Law professor and former Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Theodore Te, Malacañang’s recent statement if implemented would violate the Constitution and provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
On who are entitled to year shaving reward for good conduct is currently being debated in the wake of reports that former Calauan mayor Antonio Sanchez who was meted with seven counts of reclusion perpetua for the rape and murder of Eileen Sarment and death of Allan Gomez and two more reclusion perpetua for murder was set to be released last Aug. 20.
The Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) recently released data to prove that heinous crime convicts have been previously released because of the benefit of good conduct time allowance (GCTA).
Panelo: Round them up
BuCor said 1,914 inmates have already been freed since 2013. Malacañang, through Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo, said the convicts should return to jail and serve the full term of their prison sentence.
“Under Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), any penal law may be applied retroactively if it is to the benefit of an accused or convict, this would include an erroneous interpretation in good faith of the law,” Te said.
“The GCTA that may serve to shorten a sentence and entitle the inmate to be released extinguishes liability and, even if applied erroneously but in good faith to unqualified inmates (e.g., those serving time for heinous crimes who under the law are not entitled to GCTA), cannot justify sending back to jail those set free,” Te added.
Ex post facto law
If Malacañang will round up the 1,914 to bring them back to jail, Te said such action would be in violation of Article III, Sec. 22 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.”
Ex post facto law works to the prejudice of an accused such as depriving him of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled.
Te said Article 99 of the RPC “expressly says that the GCTA, once granted, cannot be revoked and its consequences, once set in place, cannot be reversed.”
“Sending back those who were set free on GCTA, even if they were serving sentences for heinous crimes, would be 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.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra opted not to comment on the matter.
“We have to study this question very carefully,” he said.
RELATED STORY
Palace: Freed heinous crime convicts under GCTA rule must return to jail