Guinto v. Department of Justice

RA 10592 (2013) amended Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the RPC on credit for preventive imprisonment and good conduct time allowance (GCTA). In Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima, the Court had ordered GCTA recomputed retroactively. Prisoners convicted of heinous crimes who had been discharged were later ordered by then President Duterte to surrender. The DOJ and DILG then issued the 2019 Revised IRR. Rule IV, Section 2 and Rule VII, Section 2 disqualified recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons convicted of heinous crimes from GCTA and the special time allowance for loyalty, even while serving sentence. Rule XIII, Section 1 denied all credits to disqualified PDLs whose detention or sentence began after RA 10592 took effect. Two groups of New Bilibid inmates filed Rule 65 petitions for certiorari and prohibition, which were consolidated: Guinto et al., including rearrested releasees, and Fuensalida et al. They argued that the IRR went beyond the law, which excludes only persons charged with heinous crimes. The OSG argued that certiorari did not lie and that habeas corpus was the proper remedy; the BJMP argued that the law excludes these categories entirely.

1. 1Whether certiorari and prohibition were proper remedies to challenge the 2019 IRR.
2. 2Whether recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with or convicted of heinous crimes are excluded from the benefits of RA 10592, and whether the 2019 IRR validly excluded them.

The petitions were granted. Procedurally, certiorari and prohibition may be used to strike down grave abuse of discretion by any branch of government (Araullo). The Court noted, however, that whether any individual prisoner must be released is a factual matter for habeas corpus in the trial courts. On the merits, the Court read amended Article 97 closely. It grants GCTA to two alternative classes, separated by a comma and the word "or". The first is any offender qualified for preventive-imprisonment credit under Article 29, which excludes recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes. The second is "any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail". Persons charged with heinous crimes therefore cannot earn GCTA during preventive imprisonment. Once convicted by final judgment, however, they may earn it, as may recidivists, habitual delinquents and escapees. Amended Article 94 likewise partially extinguishes criminal liability through good conduct allowances earned during preventive imprisonment or service of sentence. An IRR must be germane to the law and conform to its standards, since the "spring cannot rise higher than its source". By barring convicted prisoners in these categories from earning GCTA, the DOJ went beyond its rule-making power and restricted the law to their prejudice. The Court nullified Rule IV, Section 2, Rule VII, Section 2 and the last paragraph of Rule XIII, Section 1 of the 2019 IRR, insofar as they disqualify PDLs later convicted by final judgment. Respondents were ordered to compute the petitioners' GCTA in accordance with the ruling.