Practice question
A final convict of a heinous crime seeks computation of genuinely earned post-conviction GCTA under Article 97. Officials reject any computation solely because the offense is heinous, relying on the invalidated 2019 exclusions. What is correct under Guinto?
- Heinous classification permanently bars every convicted prisoner from GCTA
- Guinto rejects that categorical post-conviction exclusion, but actual earned credits and completion still require lawful determination
- The conviction is automatically erased
- Every applicant must be released without calculation
- The rule concerns only preventive detention and never service after conviction
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles89(2),94 and113: completed service, partial reductions and survival of civil liability.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10592_2013.html — RA 10592: lawful preventive and good-conduct credits in sentence computation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_223107_2023.html — People v. Agustin, G.R. 223107, March 15, 2023, main decision: completed service extinguishes criminal liability without erasing civil liability.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_249027_2024.html — Guinto v. DOJ, G.R. 249027 and249155, April 3, 2024, main decision: post-conviction GCTA, invalid exclusions and lawful computation.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.