RA 10592

Good Conduct Time Allowance Law

and its Revised IRR (2019)
 Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA)
a grant accorded a PDL on Good Conduct entitling
him to deductions from the possible maximum
imposable imprisonment or period of sentence

• conspicuous and satisfactory behavior • faithful obedience

• development or rehabilitation • non-commission/
programs non-participation in the
• authorized work activities commission of any
• accomplishment of exemplary deeds crime or offense
 ART. 29. Period of preventive

“
imprisonment deducted from term
of imprisonment.
Full Credit
“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…”
 ART. 29. Period of preventive

“
imprisonment deducted from term
of imprisonment.
4/5 Credit
“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.”
 Other Salient Points

“
• Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from 30 years.
• Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible
maximum imprisonment… he shall be released
immediately…
• Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of
immediate release shall be the actual period of detention
with GCTA…
• In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days
of preventive imprisonment.
 Exceptions: Who are Disqualified

“ 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
f. Person Deprived of Liberty (PDL) charged of Heinous
Crimes
 PEOPLE vs. OLOVERIO
G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015
Based on the records, accused-appellant was put under preventive imprisonment
pending his conviction by the trial court. In accordance with Article 29 of the RPC, the
time undergone by accused-appellant under preventive imprisonment
shall be credited to his service of sentence, provided that he has given his
written conformity to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners.
The letter of PGI Gilbert P. Cayubit, Officer-in-Charge of the Leyte Sub-Provincial Jail,
stated that accused-appellant had been transferred to Leyte Regional Prison on May 4,
2010. The transfer to Leyte Regional Prison was also confirmed by SO2 Jorge A.
Colanta, Officer-in-Charge of the Leyte Regional Prison, who stated that accused-
appellant was received by the prison on May 27, 2010.
As the exact length of time cannot be determined with certainty, the trial
court shall determine the exact period of preventive imprisonment that
may be credited in accused-appellant's favor.
 LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016

The records are unclear whether Dela Cruz is currently detained by the
state or is out on bail. Dela Cruz's detention is relevant in determining
whether he has already served more than the penalty imposed upon him or
whether he is qualified to the credit of his preventive imprisonment with his
service of sentence.
In case credit of preventive imprisonment is due, Dela Cruz must first
signify his agreement to the conditions set forth in Article 29 of the
RPC. If petitioner has already served more than the penalty imposed
upon him by the trial court, then his immediate release from custody is in
order unless detained for some other lawful cause.
 PEOPLE vs. CHAVEZ
G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014

As regards Chavez’s sentence, the trial court issued the order dated
November 14, 2006 ordering to immediately commit accused Chavez to the
Manila City Jail and shall be detained thereat pending trial of this case
and/or until further orders from this court. The order of commitment dated
September 28, 2011 was issued after his trial court conviction in the decision
dated August 19, 2011.
Chavez has been under preventive detention since November 14,
2006, during the pendency of the trial.  This period may be credited in
the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC.
 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.
 ART. 97. Allowance for good
conduct.
During first 2 years of
imprisonment
During the 3rd to 5th year of
imprisonment
During the following years until
the 10th year of imprisonment
During the 11th and successive
years of his imprisonment
At any time during
imprisonment
20 days deduction for each month of
good behavior
23 days deduction for each month of
good behavior
25 days deduction for each month of
good behavior
30 days deduction for each month of
good behavior
15 days deduction for each month of
study, teaching or mentoring service
time rendered (TASTM*)
 Exceptions: Who are Disqualified
Time Allowance for
GCTA During Preventive GCTA During
Study, Teaching or
Imprisonment Service of Sentence
Mentoring (TASTM)

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

An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him

of entitlement to the above allowances for good
conduct.
 TIU vs. DIZON
G.R. No. 211269, June 15, 2016
He claimed that he is entitled to 19 years and 7 months of GCTA which when
tacked to his actual service of 14 years and 9 months, would add up to 34 years and 4
months, or more than his alleged reduced sentence of 30 years.
MONTHS DAYS GCTA MONTHLY GCTA
01 October 1999 –
20 days 24 months
01 October 2001
01 October 2002 –
23 days 36 months
01 October 2005
01 October 2006 –
25 days 178 months
01 October 2010
01 October 2011 –
30 days 44 months
01 July 2014
 TIU vs. DIZON
G.R. No. 211269, June 15, 2016

The conferment by the Director of Corrections of a colonist status to petitioner

did not operate to reduce the latter's sentence. The act of classification is
separate from and necessarily precedes the act of approval by the Executive.
Once classified as such, the prisoner must maintain the classification, and
such classification receives the President’s approval.
BAKING AND RODRIGUEZ vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
G.R. No. L-30364, July 28, 1969
"ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. - The good conduct of any prisoner in any
penal institution shall entitle him to the following deductions…”
Petitioners contend that “any prisoner” in the English text of the RPC includes
detention prisoners; hence, would be applicable to them. However, upon perusal of
the Spanish text, “any prisoner” refers to a convict or a person already
sentenced by final judgment. The service of a sentence of one in prison begins
only on the day the judgment of conviction becomes final.
Moreover, there is not as much as an intimation that petitioners have
voluntarily offered in writing to perform such labor as may be assigned
to them. Petitioners have not even told us that they worked during the period of
their preventive imprisonment. The burden to show that the condition imposed
by Section 5, Act 1533 has been met, is certainly upon petitioners. They have not
discharged this burden.
Note: This is prior the amendment
(Now, applies to prisoners whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence)
 IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OF INMATES REYES AND EVANGELISTA vs.
BANTAG
G.R.
On the issue of the applicability of RA 10592 and its 2019No. 251954,
Revised IRR: June 10, 2020
“Section 2. GCTA During Service of Sentence. The following shall not be entitled
to any GCTA during service of sentence:
x x x  d. PDL convicted of Heinous Crimes.”
Section 1 of RA 10592, amending Article 29 of the RPC, supports this:
“x x x Provided, finally, that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and
persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of
this Act.”
Reyes and Evangelista, who were found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
exceeding 200 grams, have committed a heinous crime. This is in consonance
with RA 7659, which includes the distribution or sale of dangerous drugs as
heinous for being a grievous, odious and hateful offense…
 ART. 98. Special time allowance
for loyalty.
• evaded his preventive imprisonment or the
service of his sentence
• on the occasion of disorder resulting from
a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or
similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in
A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his
which he has not participated
sentence • gives himself up to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such
calamity

• chose to stay in the place of his

A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his
confinement notwithstanding the existence
sentence
of such calamity or catastrophe
“ Exceptions: Who are Disqualified

a. Recidivists
b. Habitual Delinquents
c. Escapees
d. PDL charged and convicted of heinous crimes
 LOSADA et al. vs. ACENAS
G.R. No. L-810, March 31, 1947
“x x x those prisoners who, having all the chances to escape and did not escape but
remained in their prison cell during the disorder caused by war have shown more
convincingly their loyalty than those who escaped under such circumstances and
give themselves up within 48 hours. After the executive proclamation for the latter, that is,
the prisoner who escaped might have been persuaded to give themselves up merely
because they could see but a slim chance to avoid capture inasmuch as the
government then was functioning with all its normal efficiency. And if those who are loyal
merely in times of conflagration, earthquake, explosion and other similar catastrophe are
considered loyal and are for that reason given in their favor 1/5 reduction of their sentence,
with more reason that those who stayed in their places of confinement during
the war."
The STAL refers to those convicts who, having evaded the service of their sentences
by leaving the penal institution, give themselves up within two days. Here, petitioners are
not in that class, because they have not escaped; hence, they have no claim to that
allowance.
Note: This is prior the amendment
(Now, those who stayed are entitled to 2/5 deduction)
 ART. 99. Who grants time

“ allowances.

Whenever lawfully justified, the following officials shall grant

time allowances:
a. Director General of the Bureau of Corrections;
b. Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology;
and/or
c. Warden of a Provincial, District, City or Municipal Jail.
Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
 PEOPLE vs. TAN
G.R. No. L-21805, February 25, 1967
The SC held that there is no justification for the warden's usurping the authority of
the Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner with GCTA. Article 99 of the RPC
vests such authority exclusively in the Director and no one else.
Assuming that Tan was entitled to GCTA, his release by the provincial warden,
after an imprisonment of only 2 years, 8 months and 1 day, was premature. The
prisoner's actual confinement of 2 years, 8 months and 21 days, plus his
possible total credit of 6 months and 4 days, would give the result of 3 years,
2 months and 25 days. Since the maximum term of his sentence is 4 years
and 2 months, he has an unserved portion of 11 months and 5 days.
The prisoner's re-arrests would not place him twice in jeopardy because his re-
incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalty that he had not completely
served due to the erroneous act of the warden, it is not a new or subsequent
conviction.
Note: This is prior the amendment
(Now, such authority is vested in the BuCor Director General, Chief of the BJMP, and Warden)
 CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL vs.
ESTRELLA
G.R. No. 141211. August 31, 2001

The RTC committed an error in ordering their release on the basis of

the certification issued by the City Warden because it is the Director
of the Prisons (now Bureau of Corrections) who shall grant said
allowances for good conduct.
The Court is constrained to order the re-arrest of Estrella et. al. This
can be done without placing them in double jeopardy of being punished for
the same offense because their re-incarceration is merely a continuation of
the penalties that they had not completely served due to the invalid crediting
of GCTA in their favor.

Note: This is prior the amendment

(Now, such authority is vested in the BuCor Director General, Chief of the BJMP, and Warden)
 INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON, MUNTINLUPA
CITY, NAMELY: ROXAS, ET AL. vs. DE LIMA
G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019
While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe a penalty as it
addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions have the
purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The
further reduction of the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis,
beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the
application of Article 22 of the RPC.

The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 actually works
to the disadvantage of petitioners and those who are similarly situated. It precludes the
decrease in the penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay;
thus, making more onerous the punishment for the crimes committed. Depriving them of
time off to which they are justly entitled as a practical matter results in extending their
sentence and increasing their punishment.