Practice question
A person convicted by final judgment of a heinous crime is serving sentence and exhibits the required good conduct. An official denies any possibility of GCTA solely because the conviction is for a heinous crime. Under Guinto's main opinion, is that categorical reason valid?
- Yes; every heinous-crime convict is permanently excluded after conviction.
- Yes; Article29's pretrial limitation always controls all later service.
- Yes; the 2019 IRR may expand exclusions beyond the statute.
- No; Guinto rejects that categorical post-conviction exclusion under Article97.
- No; because every such prisoner is immediately acquitted.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10592_2013.html — RA10592 Sections2–3 amending RPC Articles94 and97.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_249027_2024.html — Guinto v. DOJ, G.R.249027 and249155, April3 2024, MAIN en banc opinion, distinction between preventive imprisonment and service after final conviction.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.