You are on page 1of 1

Clearly, petitioner is of the mistaken belief that considering the fact that he has been

allegedly in prison for a total period of five (5) years and three (3) months (computed with Good
Conduct Time Allowance), as of the date of filing of his petition, he has already served the maximum
period of the fourteen (14) prison terms imposed upon him, and he is, therefore, entitled to be
restored to his liberty.

It is worthy to note that his claim that he has been in prison for five (5) years and three (3)
months inclusive of Good Conduct Time Allowance from the time he was allegedly imprisoned on 02
June 2015 is self-serving and at the very least, misleading.

To be clear, an accused is said to have undergone preventive imprisonment when the
detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners when the offense charged against him is nonbailable or even if bailable, he
cannot furnish the required bail. (People vs. Herila, G.R No. L-32785, May 21, 1973)

Petitioner should be reminded that the Honorable Court promulgated its decision on 12
September 2012 finding him guilty of fourteen (14) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial
Documents. Despite the fact that petitioner has already been convicted, he failed to surrender
immediately to serve his sentence and it was only on 02 June 2015 that he started to serve his jail
term. At that point, he is no longer considered a detention prisoner who is entitled to be credited
four-fifths or full-time of the period of preventive imprisonment.

Moreover, his claim that he is granted Good Conduct Time Allowance for a period of two (2)
years and one (1) month from the time of he filed his petition is specious. Under Article 99 of the
Revised Penal Code, 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 whenever lawfully justified. In the present case, the petitioner
failed to show any proof that the above-stated authorized persons granted the alleged Good Conduct
Time Allowance in his favor.

All told, petitioner's service of three (3) years and four (4) months of imprisonment is
therefore not sufficient to meet the maximum period of ____ (__) years and ___ (__) months despite
the application of Section 85 of R.A 10951. Therefore, he cannot be released from confinement on
this basis.