P v Guinto decision: I beg to disagree in part with the SC En Banc (application of GCTA)

P v Guinto decision: I beg to disagree in part

In excluding the persons charged with heinous crime, who agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, in availing credits for preventive imprisonment through the decision reached in P v Guinto, En Banc , GR 249027 and 249155, 3 April 2024[1] and the consequent issuance of 2024 IRR of RA 10592 thereafter, disregard the intent of RA 10592.

 

The Guinto case was brought by the convicted prisoners who were released by virtue of RA 10592 but were excluded in the 2019 IRR. The portion of the 2019 IRR was nullified in so far as it disqualifies persons deprived of liberty who are subsequently convicted by final judgment. Justice Leonen has a dissenting opinion while Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justice Caguioa have concurring opinions and all support the dispositive portion.

 

It was a surprise how our esteemed justices missed another way of giving life to the words and intent of RA 10592. I believe the 2024 IRR and P vs. Guinto are still worthy of another challenge from those who were disqualified from the benefits of RA 10592 during their preventive imprisonment because they are charged of heinous crimes (and escapees too).

 

Who are the offenders qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC as amended by RA 10592?

 

The provision that can answer this and the source of contention as well is provided in Section 1 of RA 10592 reads:

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 destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment."

As stated in RA 10592, ART. 29 covers period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. Let us dissect each paragraph of the said section.

First Paragraph

            From this provision, the first paragraph means that a detention prisoner who agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners is entitled to a deduction from term of imprisonment.

The subparagraph of this first paragraph, specifically excludes from coverage detention prisoners "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.”

            Note that, “habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes” was not excluded in particularity though a habitual delinquent may fall under “have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime. Thus, this elucidation mainly seeks for the benefit of detention prisoners charged with heinous crimes.

Second Paragraph

            The second paragraph tackles a scenario where the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

Third Paragraph

            The third paragraph states, “the credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years,” and brings to mind that almost all heinous crimes are penalized with reclusion perpetua. Thus, despite P v. Guinto, it is still debatable whether a person charged with a heinous crime should indeed be excluded by RA 10592. One, it is no longer a preventive imprisonment if one is already convicted; and two, heinous crimes are mostly crimes that come with reclusion perpetua as penalty. So, why does RA 10592 provide for this specific paragraph if it does not intend to benefit persons charged with heinous crimes?

 

 

Fourth Paragraph

            The fourth and final paragraph covers detention prisoner who 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. In this case, the detention prisoner shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.

The following sentences of the same paragraph provides for the computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release, and it provides the parameters for the availment of this immediate release which can be broken down into the following:

 1. The computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance: 

2. 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: 

3. Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act.

4. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment."

            This fourth and final paragraph of section 1 should not be construed as further exclusion to those entitled to a deduction from term of imprisonment. If that is the intent of the law, it should have had included the same in the subparagraph of the first paragraph.

Instead, the said proviso should be interpreted as exclusions for those who can avail of deduction from term of imprisonment for the purpose of immediate release without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceeding on appeal.

The final proviso may have used the word “Act” instead of “paragraph” but it should be considered as a proviso for the last paragraph only as may be gleaned from Provided, however of the second sentence and Provided, finally of the third sentence that effectively connect the ideas that they support the first sentence of said fourth paragraph. This interpretation of the last paragraph as a whole follows the statutory construction principle of Noscitur a sociis[2] which translates to “it is known by its associates.”  

In conclusion, this interpretation grants detention prisoners who are charged with heinous crime to deduction from term of imprisonment but disqualifies them from immediate release despite service of maximum sentence while their case are still on trial or on appeal.

[1] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/new249027.pdf last accessed 12 February 2025

 

 

[2] “Noscitur a sociis.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/noscitur%20a%20sociis. Accessed 12 Feb. 2025. See also https://dictionary.justia.com/noscitur-a-sociis. Accessed 12 Feb. 2025.