Returning freed inmates to jail not easy — DOJ

It’s complicated. This is how the Department of Justice (DOJ) reacted to presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo’s statements that inmates convicted of heinous crimes who were freed under the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law should be sent back to prison.

“We need to study that matter very carefully. It may not be as simple as it seems,” Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said.

Panelo pointed out that Republic Act 10592 clearly excludes those who are convicted of heinous crimes, escapees, habitual delinquents and recidivists, which means they have to serve their full term in prison.

Former Supreme Court spokesman Theodor Te said sending them back “would be a retroactive application of the law in a prejudicial manner,” which is prohibited by the Constitution as an “ex post facto application of law.”

“The GCTA that may serve to shorten a sentence and entitle the inmate to be released extinguishes liability and, even if applied erroneously but in good faith to unqualified inmates, cannot justify sending back to jail those set free,” Te said.

“Unlike conditional pardon, the only item under Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code that can justify sending back the convict to jail (upon violation of the condition for the pardon), Article 99 expressly says that the GCTA, once granted, cannot be revoked and its consequences, once set in place, cannot be reversed,” he added.

Congressmen called for a review of the guidelines of the GCTA and urged Guevarra to investigate the officials responsible for the bulk release of convicts.

The Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) had said it has released 1,914 prisoners convicted of heinous crimes due to GCTA since 2014. Some 11,000 others, possibly including convicted rape-slay convict Antonio Sanchez, are being processed.

Reps. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City and Jericho Nograles of party-list group Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta said the officials, whether from the BuCor or DOJ, should face charges for unlawfully releasing the convicts.

Rodriguez pointed out prisoners serving time for heinous crimes are not qualified to apply for good conduct time allowance for the reduction of their sentence.

“The law clearly disqualifies them,” he said.

However, unlike presidential spokesman Panelo, Rodriguez does not think the freed convicts could be returned to prison.

“They cannot be rearrested, unless they commit a new crime,” he said.

Nograles, however, believes the heinous crime convicts “were improperly released, for which responsible officials should face administrative and criminal charges.”

He shared Panelo’s view on the return of the convicts to jail.

“Since they were improperly released, then the release orders could be rescinded,” Nograles said.

Nograles called for a deeper probe into the grant of GCTA and the recent aborted release of Sanchez.

ACT-CIS Rep. Eric Go Yap, Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. and 1-Pacman Rep. Mikee Romero also questioned the release of the convicts despite exclusion of heinous crimes in the GCTA law.

Yap earlier filed House Resolution 280 seeking investigation of the House committees of justice and revision of laws to conduct an inquiry on the implementation of RA 10592 and the botched release of Sanchez.

Yap also proposed amendment of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to remove the “three-fold rule” which limits the sentences in multiple counts to a maximum of three times the harshest imprisonment penalty or 40 years, whichever is shorter.

Garbin, vice chairman of the House justice committee, supported the move to review the GCTA law, suggesting that its coverage should exclude inmates convicted of heinous crimes, just like Sanchez.

Cavite Rep. Strike Revilla, for his part, also questioned the release of the inmates with heinous crimes.