IF there is one good thing to come out of the aborted plan to release former Calauan, Laguna Mayor Antonio Sanchez, it is to reveal inconsistencies on the part of many people, including our public officials. It also revealed fundamental flaws in our penal system.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra announced the impending possible release of Sanchez by virtue of Republic Act (RA) 10592 passed by Congress in 2013 which amended the Revised Penal Code. The law sought to give additional credits for good behavior to those who are in preventive imprisonment and those who are already serving their sentences. Time allowances are computed and credited toward the period of the sentence. This would have the effect of cutting short the prison term as a reward for good conduct.
The news of Sanchez’s impending release raised widespread public outcry. People were outraged that a man found guilty in 1993 of raping, and then letting his men rape, University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) student Eileen Sarmenta, and then killing her and her friend, another student, Allan Gomez, would be released. The rape and double murder rocked not only the UPLB community but the entire country. The inhumanity even led Judge Harriet Demetriou to label the act as a plot hatched in hell.
And now, by virtue of good conduct time allowance (GCTA) which was enabled by RA 10592, and which the Supreme Court interpreted as to be implemented retroactively, and as earlier announced by our top justice and jail and penology officials, Sanchez may even walk free much earlier than expected. Based on the initial computations by the officials concerned, Sanchez has already served the equivalent of 34 years, 2 months and 26 days.
At the outset, RA 10592 is a law with a good intention. It was meant to decongest our crowded jails by shortening the sentences of those imprisoned who have shown good behavior. It also specifically excludes those who have been accused of heinous crimes.
It is therefore patently irregular for Sanchez to be considered as one of those to benefit from RA 10592. It is on record that he has been twice found in possession of illegal drugs. In addition, he violated the rules when he lived in luxury while incarcerated by having his own air-conditioned kubol equipped with prohibited gadgets. But more importantly, even without this, he would be barred from benefiting from the law simply because he has been accused and convicted of a heinous crime. In fact, the Parole Board has denied his request for clemency not only once but twice, with the latest just in February of this year.
Sen. Leila de Lima is in prison accused of coddling drugs in the penitentiary. And this administration was about to release Sanchez for good conduct despite being caught in possession of shabu inside his jail cell. It was only after widespread anger expressed by the people that Nicanor Faeldon clarified that Sanchez might not be qualified. Guevarra, who earlier was quoted as saying that there was no legal impediment to Sanchez’s release, has now ordered a review of his records, even as he called attention to the fact that the law doesn’t include people who have committed heinous crimes. It is strange, however, how Guevarra could have missed that provision in the law.
But even then, the cat was already out of the bag. The prospect of Sanchez being released was enough to please presidential spokesman Sal Panelo, who was his lawyer during the trial. Sen. Bato dela Rosa also came out to defend Sanchez, saying he was worthy of a second chance simply because he was now allegedly a changed man as he was now wearing a skirt and lipstick. Later, Bato tried to wiggle out of the predicament in which he found himself by saying that if it had been up to him, he would have wanted Sanchez executed, hence his proposal to reinstate the death penalty. Bato was probably unaware that he just undermined the logic of his proposal when he granted a reformed Sanchez the right to a second chance. It behooves us to ask Bato how one who committed a heinous crime can be given the opportunity to reform and get a second chance if he is already dead.
The diehard Duterte supporters (DDS) love to point their fingers at the previous administration as the one at fault for allowing RA 10592 to pass. They ignore the real intent of the law, as well as the fact that it contains provisions which if properly implemented would have disqualified Sanchez
The DDS conveniently forget that it is the present system under the Duterte government that appeared to have considered Sanchez as of good behavior despite his repeated violations, and would have granted him special privileges that technically and legally he doesn’t deserve. Officials of the present administration were the ones who made Sanchez into a poster boy for this issue by prominently bannering him as its beneficiary.
There are many sins that we can conveniently throw at Noynoy Aquino and his sorry tenure. And for good reason. But this one lands squarely on the people of President Duterte.
While we may have stopped Sanchez from benefiting from RA 10592, however, he may just be able to leave jail later because of a flaw in our penal system. Regardless of the several sentences of reclusion perpetua, the maximum prison term is not to exceed 40 years. Thus, Sanchez, who was sentenced to nine life terms, seven for the Sarmenta-Gomez rape and double murder conviction, and two for killing two people earlier, would be serving only a maximum of 40 years for all nine counts, and not 360 years.
While it is easy to push for the death penalty to remedy this case, the Revised Penal Code can also be amended to impose an absolute reclusion perpetua. This is to ensure that people like Sanchez will rot in jail until the end of their lives.
https://www.manilatimes.net/reversals-contradictions-and-flaws/606448/
No comments:
Post a Comment