ACT NO.

4103
(As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 [June 19, 1965])

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS
CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A
BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal
Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense
is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or
life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to
those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of
piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or
evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this
Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.

Sec. 3. There is hereby created a Board of Pardons and Parole to be composed of the Secretary
of Justice who shall be its Chairman, and four members to be appointed by the President, with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments who shall hold office for a term of six years:
Provided, That one member of the board shall be a trained sociologist, one a clergyman or
educator, one psychiatrist unless a trained psychiatrist be employed by the board, and the other
members shall be persons qualified for such work by training and experience. At least one
member of the board shall be a woman. Of the members of the present board, two shall be
designated by the President to continue until December thirty, nineteen hundred and sixty-six
and the other two shall continue until December thirty, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine. In case
of any vacancy in the membership of the Board, a successor may be appointed to serve only for
the unexpired portion of the term of the respective members.

Sec. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as
may be necessary for carrying out its functions and duties. The Board is empowered to call upon
any bureau, office, branch, subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the Government for such
assistance as it may need in connection with the performance of its functions. A majority of all
the members shall constitute a quorum and a majority vote shall be necessary to arrive at a
decision. Any dissent from the majority opinion shall be reduced to writing and filed with the
records of the proceedings. Each member of the Board, including the Chairman and the Executive
Officer, shall be entitled to receive as compensation fifty pesos for each meeting actually
attended by him, notwithstanding the provisions of Section two hundred and fifty-nine of the
Revised Administrative Code, and in addition thereto, reimbursement of actual and necessary
traveling expenses incurred in the performance of duties: Provided, however, That the Board
meetings will not be more than three times a week.

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical,
mental and moral record of the prisoners who shall be eligible to parole and to determine the
proper time of release of such prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum
penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the
reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules
and regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board itself, that
such prisoner is fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such
prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that such release will not
be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its
discretion, and in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the
release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and
as may be prescribed by the Board. The said Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine
the records and status of prisoners who shall have been convicted of any offense other than
those named in Section 2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than one year by final
judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall take effect, and shall make recommendation
in all such cases to the Governor-General with regard to the parole of such prisoners as they
shall deem qualified for parole as herein provided, after they shall have served a period of
imprisonment not less than the minimum period for which they might have been sentenced under
this Act for the same offense.

Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such
times and in such manner as may be required by the conditions of his parole, as may be
designated by the said Board for such purpose, report personally to such government officials or
other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a period of
surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him or
until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The
officials so designated shall keep such records and make such reports and perform such other
duties hereunder as may be required by said Board. The limits of residence of such paroled
prisoner during his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the said Board in its
discretion. If during the period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a
law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which shall entitle
him to final release and discharge.

Sec. 7. The Board shall file with the court which passed judgment on the case, and with the
Chief of Constabulary, a certified copy of each order of conditional or final release and discharge
issued in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding two sections.

Sec. 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the period
of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence
may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any part of the Philippine Islands by
any police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired
portion of the maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to prison, unless the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner.

Sec. 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or interfere with the powers of the
Governor-General as set forth in Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code or the Act of
Congress approved August 29, 1916 entitled "An Act to declare the purpose of the people of the
United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to
provide a more autonomous government for those Islands."

Sec. 10. Whenever any prisoner shall be released on parole hereunder he shall be entitled to
receive the benefits provided in Section 1751 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Approved: chan robles virtuallawlibrary December 5, 1933.

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 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.

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.
RA 10592 does not exclude convicted heinous criminals
BY ANTONIO CONTRERAS
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
THERE is a prevailing sentiment that Republic Act (RA) 10592, or the Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA) Law, which amended the Revised Penal Code (RPC), intended to
exclude persons convicted for heinous crimes from its beneficiaries. This is precisely why
many people blame the framers of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for their
alleged failure to reflect such important element of the law.

As discussed in this column last Tuesday, it appears that such sentiment may in fact be
standing on shaky ground. A genealogical analysis of RA 10592 revealed that Congress
apparently failed to fully reconcile House Bill (HB) 417 with Senate Bill (SB) 3064. This gross
negligence led to a conundrum where people charged with heinous crimes are excluded
from benefiting from the provision where the period of their preventive imprisonment will now
be deducted from their sentence once they are convicted, but would appear to be
included in the expansion of the time allowances credited due to good conduct.

It is easy to argue, using commonsensical logic, that by extension we can also assume that
persons convicted for heinous crimes must also be excluded and disqualified from benefiting
from the law. After all, if persons are excluded when they are merely charged of a heinous
crime, it is indeed logical to assume that they must also be excluded when they are already
convicted. There are important issues, however, that need to be considered before one can
accept this assumption.

One can always assert that we should go back to the deliberations in Congress to know the
real intent of the law. However, on this one, congressional records might only reveal the
failure of the 15th Congress to exercise due diligence. HB 417, which contained an
exception excluding those charged with heinous crimes, in addition to recidivists, habitual
delinquents and escapees, only focused on the eligibility of detainees to count the period of
their preventive imprisonment toward their sentences should they be found guilty of the
crimes they are being charged with. However, SB 3064, which expanded the time
allowances for good conduct, or GCTA, did not contain such exception, in the same way
that the RPC did not discriminate among crimes in the awarding of GCTA. Sen. Franklin Drilon
has admitted to the failure of the Senate to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes. In
addition, it is apparent that the version constructed by the bicameral conference
committee, and ratified by the Senate and the House plenaries, was merely a joined version
that did not show evidence of any reconciliation. Congress did not even attempt to edit the
text, as revealed by the fact that Section 1 of the law retained the original wording of HB
417.

One can also divine the meaning of the law in the context of the prevailing policy climate. In
addition, here, the interpretation would favor the interests of those convicted of heinous
crimes.

Play
RA 6975 created the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), which is tasked to
“enhance public safety by providing humane safekeeping and development of inmates in
all district, city and municipal jails.” Included in its powers is to “ensure the provision of quality
services for the custody, safekeeping, rehabilitation and development of district, city and
municipal inmates, any fugitive from justice, or person detained.”

On the other hand, the IRR of RA 10575 mandates the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), which
has jurisdiction over national penitentiaries housing convicts whose sentences exceed three
years, to “promote the general welfare and safeguard the basic rights of every prisoner
incarcerated in our national penitentiary by promoting and ensuring their reformation and
social reintegration, creating an environment conducive to rehabilitation and compliant
with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners (UNSMRTP).”

Thus, it is clear that the policy landscape that we have in relation to convicted criminals
focuses on rehabilitation, development, reformation and social reintegration. The IRR of RA
10575, in particular, as the law that governs the penal institutions that administer persons
convicted of more serious offenses, including those convicted of heinous crimes, devotes
several provisions detailing the mechanisms focusing on rehabilitation and reformation. There
is no attempt to discriminate among types of criminals. In fact, it even specifically mandates
a more politically correct labeling of persons convicted by referring to them as persons
deprived of liberty, or PDLs. This penal philosophy was installed around the time that RA
10592 was passed by the 15th Congress, which therefore leads us to conclude that the ethos
prevailing at the time was rehabilitative and restorative justice, and not retributive or
punitive.

It is in this context that one could extrapolate and implicate this penal philosophy on RA
10592, leading one to conclude that having a system of awarding time allowance for good
conduct to all PDLs, regardless of the crime they committed, heinous crimes included, is
logical, coherent and consistent with the prevailing policy climate towards convicted
criminals at the time. After all, it was also the time when we abolished the death penalty for
heinous crimes. This legal predisposition to favor the rights of convicts is also deeply rooted in
our judicial system, with the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto application of laws,
and with the Supreme Court reiterating recently the retroactive application of laws that
would benefit convicts, and by implication, a prospective application when it would be to
their detriment.

In sum, it seems that on the question of whether persons convicted for a heinous crime
should benefit from GCTA, the answer is that they would. The law is vaguely constructed, if
not silent on the issue. The framers of the law failed to address the issue, and there is no
articulated intent to support a particular position. The prevailing penal philosophy favors
rehabilitation and reformation. Jurisprudence favors the rights of convicts. Hence, only a
misapplication or corruption of the GCTA can be assailed, but not the law that created it.