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

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

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

"2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed
to surrender voluntarily.

"If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall
be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment.

"Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted
from thirty (30) years.1âwphi1

"Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and
his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any
stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided,
finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment."

Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

"1. By conditional pardon;

"2. By commutation of the sentence; and

"3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence."

Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read 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

1
 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."

Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment
or the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code,
gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A
deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.

"This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving sentence."

Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:"

"ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. – Whenever lawfully justified, 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.
Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked."

Section 6. Penal Clause. – Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby mandated.
As such, the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment, a fine of One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be imposed against any public
officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act.

Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Secretary of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall within
sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations on the classification
system for good conduct and time allowances, as may be necessary, to implement the provisions of
this Act.

Section 8. Separability Clause. – If any part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder
of the provisions not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 9. Repealing Clause. – Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of
instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

2
Section 10. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in
the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) new papers of general circulation.

What is good conduct time allowance?

Good conduct time allowance or GCTA is a sentence reduction provision afforded prisoners who show
good behavior.

It has been in existence since 1906. Act 1533 provided for the “diminution of sentences imposed upon
prisoners” in consideration of good conduct and diligence.

Citing a 1908 decision, the SC said the law served a double purpose: to “encourage the convict in an
effort to reform” and “induce...habits of industry and good conduct” in the person beyond one’s sentence,
and “aid to discipline” various jails and penitentiaries.

Twenty-four years later, the RPC, a legal code governing crimes and their punishment, was signed into
law, incorporating good conduct time allowances for “any prisoner in any penal situation.”

What is RA 10592 and how does it work?

In May 2013, then President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III signed RA 10592, amending Articles 29, 94,
97, 98, and 99 of the RPC, which sought to:
• expand the application of the GCTA to those under preventive imprisonment or those detained prior
and during criminal trial, who are deemed too dangerous for release;
• increase the number of days that may be credited for GCTA;
• allow an additional sentence deduction of 15 days for each month of study, teaching, or mentoring
service; and
• expand the special time allowance for loyalty and make it applicable to those under preventive
imprisonment.

In cases of "special circumstances," such as calamities, prisoners who, after evading preventive
imprisonment or the service of their sentence, give themselves up to authorities within 48 hours after the
"circumstance" had passed, will get a "loyalty" deduction of one-fifth of their sentence.

This means, prisoners who have evaded service due to fire, earthquake, explosion, or other catastrophes
must surrender within two days from authorities’ declaration that such events are no longer present to
qualify for the loyalty deduction.

Section 5 of the law says the BuCor director, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology chief, and/or
the warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail “shall grant allowances for good conduct.”

Case:

Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr.
vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; William M. Montinola, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No.
212719). Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No. 214637)

Last June, the SC granted the petition filed by New Bilibid Prison inmates, voiding Sec. 4, Rule 1 of RA
10592 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which states that the grant of time allowance of
prisoners for good conduct, study, teaching, and mentoring service, and loyalty “shall be prospective in
application.”

The High Court ruled that the law should be applied retroactively, meaning those detained or convicted
before RA 10592 was passed should also be covered by, and, therefore, potentially benefit from, the law.

The ruling is in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC, which states that penal laws “shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of the felony, who is not a habitual criminal.”

Who can benefit from the law?

Inmates who display "good behavior and [have] no record of breach of discipline or violation of prison

3
rules and regulations" may be eligible for GCTA, according to the BuCor operating manual, as cited in
the SC decision.

The IRR of RA 10592 defines good behavior as:

"the conspicuous and satisfactory behavior of a detention or convicted prisoner consisting of active
involvement in rehabilitation programs, productive participation in authorized work activities or
accomplishment of exemplary deeds coupled with faithful obedience to all prison/jail rules and
regulations”

Who are excluded from the law?

Recidivists or those who “have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime,” habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from its coverage, according
to section 1 of RA 10592.

The law, as well as RPC, however, does not define what constitutes a “heinous crime.”

Under RA 7659 or the Death Penalty Act, heinous crimes are:

“grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.”-- those that may be punishable by death.

The new IRR of Republic Act 10592 or the GCTA law now categorically excludes heinous crime
convicts like Sanchez from the benefits of the new GCTA Law.

Here are the salient amendments in the new IRR:

1. Recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, those charged with heinous crimes and an accused who,
upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence has failed to surrender voluntarily before a court
of law, are excluded from good conduct time allowance under RA 10592 (Section 2, Rule IV)

2. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts, but who were convicted before
the law became effective in 2013 shall be entitled to good conduct time allowance under the Revised
Penal Code (2nd paragraph, Section 1, Rule XIII)

3. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts, and who were convicted after
the law became effective in 2013, shall not be entitled to any type of good conduct time allowance (3rd
paragraph, Section 1, Rule XII)

Case of Sanchez: for discussion

In 1995, Sanchez and six others were sentenced to seven terms of reclusion perpetua, for the brutal rape
and murder of University of the Philippines Los Baños student Eileen Sarmenta and for the torture and
murder of Allan Gomez, another student, two years prior.

Under the RPC, the maximum detention period is 40 years, regardless of the number of terms that one
must serve. This means Sanchez will serve only 40 years in prison at most, even if he was sentenced to
seven terms of life imprisonment.

In 1996, the court convicted Sanchez and three others of double murder of father and son Nelson and
Rickson Peñalosa. Sanchez was already in jail then for the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of
Gomez.
In 1999, the SC affirmed the lower courts’ rulings against Sanchez for the Sarmenta-Gomez rape-slay and
the Peñalosas slay cases.

It would seem that inmates charged with heinous crimes who were under preventive imprisonment or
were found guilty before the law’s enactment on May 29, 2013, like Sanchez who was convicted in 1995,
are still qualified for lower GCTA credits originally provided by the Revised Penal Code.

4
This means that convicts like Sanchez would get GCTA credits as follows:

- A deduction of five days from their sentences for each month of good behavior during the first two years
of their imprisonment

- A deduction of eight days from their sentences for each month of good behavior from the third to fifth
year of their imprisonment

- A deduction of 10 days from their sentences for each month of good behavior from the sixth to 10th
year of their imprisonment

- A deduction of 15 days from their sentences for each month of good behavior from the 11th and
succeeding years of their imprisonment

Cases:
City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella, G.R. No. 141211, [August 31, 2001], 416 PHIL 634-659

Invoking Arts. 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code, respondents asked petitioner Rosendo M.
Dial, City Warden of the Manila City Jail, to effect their release on the ground that they had already
served their sentences, less time allowances for good conductin the service of their sentences. However,
petitioner City Warden denied respondents' request on the ground that only the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections can grant them allowances for good conduct under Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code.
Nonetheless, petitioner City Warden issued certifications of good behavior to respondents. Respondents,
represented by the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid, then filed before the Supreme Court a petition
for habeas corpus. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus, which it made returnable to the Regional
Trial Court, Manila. Petitioner City Warden, through the Solicitor General, opposed the release of
respondents, arguing that while the Director of the Bureau of Corrections no longer exercises authority
over city and municipal prisoners, he remains the sole authority who can grant  time allowances
for good conduct to prisoners. The trial court eventually directed petitioner to release from confinement
herein respondents. The trial court held that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, now the Bureau of
Corrections, no longer has the authority to grant good conduct time allowances to inmates in the
provincial, city, and municipal jails in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 6975, otherwise known as the
Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, which places provincial, city, and
municipal jails under the supervision and control of the Bureau of Jail Management. It further held that
the certifications issued by petitioner City Warden constituted sufficient basis to grant respondents'
release. 
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
In setting aside the appealed decision, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering the
release of respondents before full service of their sentences without the certification at least of the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections as to their good conducttime allowances. The Court also found no
basis for the conclusion of the trial court that it could rely on the certifications issued by the City Warden
as to the good conduct time allowances of respondents because the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
would also have to depend on the same anyway as respondents are not under his control and supervision.
In People v. Tan, (19 SCRA 433), the Court held that a provincial warden cannot grant credit
for good conduct to a prisoner and order his release because Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code vests the
authority to grant prisoners good conduct time allowances exclusively in the Director and in no one else.
The Court remanded the case to the trial judge for further proceedings taking into account the certification
of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections as to the good conduct time allowances, by either granting
the writ of habeas corpus as to some respondents, or ordering the re-arrest of others, as facts may warrant.
People v. Sarinas y Cancio, G.R. No. 207660 (Notice), [July 4, 2018]

In its April 26, 2017 Resolution, 1 this Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant
Rosario Sarinas y Cancio of qualified theft, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant was likewise ordered to pay private complainant Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company the sum of US$10,043.52 as actual damages, which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from finality of the resolution until full payment. Accused-appellant's Motion for
Reconsideration 2 was denied with finality 3 and an Entry of Judgment 4 was made on July 31, 2017.

5
 In the meantime, on August 29, 2017, Republic Act No. 10951 5 was passed into law,
adjusting the values of property and damage to which penalties as provided in the Revised Penal
Code are based. Under the new law, the penalty for theft of an amount more than P20,000.00 but does
not exceed P600,000.00 is now punishable by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium
periods. 6
On March 5, 2018, Ulep and Ulep Law Office, on behalf of accused-appellant, filed an Entry
of Appearance with Motion to Fix Penalty in Accordance with Republic Act No. 10951. 7 Counsel
argued that accused-appellant had already served her sentence as adjusted by Republic Act No.
10951, and therefore, should accordingly be released from detention. Cited as basis was Section 85 of
Republic Act No. 10951, which partly provides:
Section 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No.
4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
"ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if such
amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not
exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(P1,200,000).["]
While the provision cited is wrong, as it pertains to a felony of which accused-appellant was
not convicted, this Court nevertheless notes the Entry of Appearance filed by Ulep and Ulep Law
Office and grants the motion to fix the penalty in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951.
The general rule is that a final and executory judgment is immutable. However, an exception
is that a final and executory judgment may be modified only if this modification shall be favorable to
the accused. 8 Here, the adjustment of penalties pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951 is favourable to
accused-appellant since the law significantly lowered the sentence that she would serve.
Consequently, the Entry of Judgment dated July 31, 2017 is hereby modified as follows. 
The penalties for theft are provided in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, which, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10951, now states:
Article 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the thing stolen is more than One million two hundred
thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million two
hundred thousand pesos (P2,200,000); but if the value of the thing
stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum
period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one (1) year for
each additional One million pesos (P1,000,000), but the total of the
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years. In
such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may
be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code,
the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the
case may be.
2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if
the value of the thing stolen is more than Six hundred thousand pesos
(P600,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand
pesos (P1,200,000).
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if
the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000).
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum
period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos
(P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).

6
 5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over Five hundred pesos
(P500) but does not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000).
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not
exceed Five hundred pesos (P500).
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), if
the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing
stolen does not exceed Five hundred pesos (P500). If such value
exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding
subdivisions shall be made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine of not exceeding Five
thousand pesos (P5,000), when the value of the thing stolen is not over
Five hundred pesos (P500), and the offender shall have acted under the
impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for
the support of himself or his family.
Accused-appellant was convicted of qualified theft, which is punished by the penalties next
higher by two (2) degrees than those specified in Article 309:
Article 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the
penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next
preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or
consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance. 
Accused-appellant was found to have stolen US$10,043.52 or, based on the current exchange
rate, 9 amounts to P536,323.97. The theft of an amount more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P600,000.00 is now punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Adding
two (2) degrees for qualified theft, the imposable penalty is prisión mayor in its medium and
maximum periods. With no modifying circumstance present, accused-appellant should serve an
indeterminate penalty of prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum, or four (4) years,
two (2) months, and one (1) day to eight (8) years, as minimum, to prisión mayor medium and
maximum in its medium period, or nine (9) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to ten (10) years
and eight (8) months, as maximum.
As of October 17, 2016 and if good conduct time allowance is included, accused-appellant
has already served ten (10) years, ten (10) months, and fifteen (15) days in prison.  10 This means that
as of date, accused-appellant has fully served her sentence as adjusted pursuant to Republic Act No.
10951. Under the circumstances, accused-appellant must immediately be released from detention,
unless she is detained for some other cause.
WHEREFORE, the Entry of Appearance of Ulep and Ulep Law Office is
hereby NOTED and the Motion to Fix Penalty in Accordance with Republic Act No. 10951
is GRANTED. The Entry of Judgment dated July 31, 2017 is accordingly MODIFIED. Accused-
appellant, Rosario Sarinas y Cancio, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of prisión correccional
maximum to prisión mayor minimum as minimum to prisión mayor medium and maximum in its
medium period as maximum.
Further, accused-appellant Sarinas shall pay private complainant Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company the sum of US$10,043.52 as actual damages, which shall earn interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the resolution until full payment. 
However, considering that accused-appellant has fully served her sentence, the Bureau of
Corrections is hereby ORDEREDto RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless she is
being detained for other causes.
SO ORDERED."