A LAWYER has asked the Supreme Court to revisit its June 2020 ruling which barred the release of two persons convicted of drug trafficking on the ground that persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) convicted of heinous crimes are not entitled to the benefits under Republic Act 10592 or the Expanded Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law.
In a 14-page motion for reconsideration, lawyer Rubee Ruth Cagasca-Evagelista argued that the SC’s Third Division erred in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus and rejecting the release of her husband Vincent Evangelista and Raymund Reyes, who were convicted for the illegal sale of 974.12 grams of shabu in 2001.
Their conviction was affirmed by the SC in a decision dated September 27, 2007.
The lawyer insisted that the crime committed by her husband and Reyes is not a heinous crime and they are not heinous crimes offenders.
She noted that their penalty is supposed to be six to 12 years only, but it was increased to reclusion perpetua being the minimum penalty under the then Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law.
But when the death penalty was abolished in 2006, the penalties imposed on the two should have been reverted to 6 to 12 years; thus, their offenses should have not been considered as heinous crimes.
“What happened now to those who were sentenced to reclusion perpetua before the abolishment of death penalty? Are they going to serve the same sentence as those who were sentenced with death penalty?” the lawyer asked.
“In the exercise of just and fair play, if the death penalty has been lowered to reclusion penalty then the penalty of convicts must then be referred back to the penalty of the original law which is 6 years to 12 years under Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972),” the petitioner argued.
She added that “it is a general rule that when a penal statute punishes an offense by a certain penalty, and a new statute is passed imposing a greater or a lesser penalty, for the same offense, the former statute is repealed by implication.”
The petitioner added that under RA 7659, only those who were sentenced to death are considered heinous crimes offenders.
The lawyer also argued that GCTA applies to all inmates without any restrictions.
“In the case at bar they are suffering the sentence or the penalty of the law which is no longer in existence as the same has already been abolished since 2006. Therefore, there is a deprivation of constitutional right against them for being held more than the years required by law. In fact, they have already served more than 37 years including Good Conduct and Time Allowance,” the petition read.
Last June, the Court ruled that that the 2019 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A 10592 or the Expanded Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) remains valid unless declared void by the Court.
The Court held that it is clear from the implementing rules and regulations of the expanded GCTA, that persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) convicted of heinous crimes are not entitled to its benefits, thus, are not entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.