PAJARILLAGA & ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICE
Salcedo Village, Makati City

(0997) 223 2862

23 January 2020

MR. JUAN DELA CRUZ, JR.

Brgy. San Isidro
Makati City

Re: LEGAL OPINION ON THE 2019 IMPLEMENTING RULES AND

REGULATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592 OR THE GOOD
CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE CASE OF MR.
JUAN DELA CRUZ, SR.

Dear MR. DELA CRUZ:

This legal opinion seeks to provide you knowledge and guidance with regard to
your query on the implications of the 2019 Implementing Rules and Regulation
of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law to the case of your father, Mr.
Juan Dela Cruz, Sr.

FACTS:

The summary of the facts based on our initial consultation are as follows:

On January 5, 2010, Mr. Juan Dela Cruz, Sr. was arrested and charged with
the crime of murder and was consequently found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt on June 1, 2015 where he was sentenced 20 year of imprisonment.

Throughout, Mr. Dela Cruz has been exhibiting good behavior and has been
earning good conduct allowances while serving his sentence.

DISCUSSION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592

Section 3 of the RA 10592 amended the Article 97 of the Republic Act No. 3815
and redefined Allowance for good conduct 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”1

It should be noted that the above-cited provision is effective on July

23, 2012 which is prior to the final judgement of the murder case of
your father.

Furthermore, Section 1 of RA 10592 enumerated the cases where

the benefits of the said act would be inapplicable for the persons
deprived of liberty (PDL) which provides that:

“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

1An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Revised Penal Code, Rep. Act No. 10592, § 3, (July 23, 2012) (Phil.)
 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.2

However, I understand that your primary concern in this case is

the exclusion of those who have committed heinous crimes as
stipulated in the 2019 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of GCTA issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) provided
as follows:

Rule III. Section 3. Who are Disqualified - The

following shall not be entitled to any credit
preventive imprisonment:

a. Recidivists;
b. An accused who has been convicted
previously twice or more times of any
crime;
c. An accused who, upon being
summoned for the execution of his
sentence has failed to surrender
voluntarily before a court of law;
d. Habitual Delinquents;
e. Escapees; and
f. PDL charged of Heinous Crimes.3

The 2019 IRR of GCTA excludes those who have committed

heinous crimes which includes the murder to benefit from the
law.4

Moreover, the Transitory Provision of the IRR further provides

that those who have committed heinous crimes who will continue
to be a part of such law are only those whose service of sentence
had commenced by final judgement prior to the effectivity of RA
No. 10592 which is on 23 July 2012.5

In the facts you have provided, the final judgement of the case of
murder of your father was issued on June 1, 2015 which is a
latter date that the enactment of the RA 10592.

2An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Revised Penal Code, Rep. Act No. 10592, § 1, (July 23, 2012) (Phil.)
3 Department of Justice and Department of the Interior and Local Government, 2019 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of 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,
IRR, Rule III § 3, 16 September 2019, Phil.
4 Department of Justice and Department of the Interior and Local Government, 2019 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of 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,
IRR, Rule II § 1 (n), 16 September 2019, Phil.
5 Department of Justice and Department of the Interior and Local Government, 2019 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of 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,
IRR, Rule XIII § 1, 16 September 2019, Phil
CONCLUSION

Hence, the retroactive effect of the GCTA will not include the case
of your father as the final judgement of his case was released
after the effectivity of the RA 10592.6

Please let me know if I can be of further service to you in the

matter.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. JAYNIE P. PAJARILLAGA

6 6Department of Justice and Department of the Interior and Local Government, 2019 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of 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,
IRR, Rule XIII § 1, 16 September 2019, Phi