G.R. No. 235483 - Franco y Mangaoang vs. Director of Prisons

Petitioner: Boy Franco y Mangaoang, who is detained at the National Bilibid Prison, and his wife Wilfreda R. Franco, who joined the petition.
Respondent: The Director of Prisons or his authorized representatives, responsible for the implementation of penal policies.

The petitioner was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, for the crime of kidnapping with ransom.
He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a life sentence, as a result of his conviction.

Detention Commencement: The petitioner alleged that he had been held in detention since July 17, 1993.
Transfer to National Bilibid Prison: He was committed to the National Bilibid Prison on October 12, 1995 to begin serving his sentence.

Automatic reduction of a life sentence to a term of thirty (30) years, subject to further requirements.
Additional Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) credited at a rate of ten days for each calendar month (in the petition, an alternative computation mentioned an additional five days in some discussions).
Other privileges such as the potential to have his family live with him in prison, subject to approval and additional conditions.

The petitioner asserts he has served 34 years, 11 months, and 18 days of his reclusion perpetua sentence.
He also claims credit for preventive imprisonment amounting to approximately eight years.
Based on these computations and the benefits of colonist status, the petitioner argues for his immediate release.

The petitioner relies on the ruling in Cruz III v. Go, emphasizing that his sentence should be automatically reduced by virtue of his colonist status and the retroactive application of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592.
He further invokes the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 10592 as applied in the case Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City v. Secretary De Lima.

The respondent asserts that the privilege of automatic reduction, as provided for the colonist, is subject to an executive approval mandated by Section 5 of Act No. 2489 and Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
They argue that the President, as Chief Executive, must personally approve such a benefit and that such authority cannot be delegated.
The respondent further contends that the resolution referenced in Cruz III is not binding as it was merely a resolution and not a formal decision, thus invalidating the petitioner's reliance on it.

Details of the colonist privileges are enumerated in the Bureau of Corrections Operating Manual and relevant statutory provisions.
The law outlines several conditions for a prisoner to qualify as a colonist, including:

Being at least a first-class inmate.
Having served one year immediately preceding the completion of the required period.
Maintaining good conduct for a period equivalent to one-fifth of the maximum term of imprisonment (or seven years in the case of a life sentence).

The regulations explicitly require an executive (i.e., presidential) approval for the reduction of sentence benefit to become operative.

Petitioner’s prison records indicate that he earned regular GCTA, allowances for study, teaching, and mentoring, as well as credit for preventive imprisonment under RA No. 6127.
The records show that the computation for GCTA credits (amounting to 32 years, 10 months, and 7 days) was determined before the implementation of the new provisions under R.A. No. 10592.
The determination of the fairness and accuracy of these computed benefits remains a contested factual matter requiring further judicial clarification.

Whether the benefit of automatic reduction of a life sentence to thirty (30) years, as conferred by the grant of colonist status, can be invoked absent the requisite executive (presidential) approval mandated by Act No. 2489 and the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the reliance on the ruling in Cruz III v. Go is valid in establishing the petitioner’s entitlement to such sentence reduction given that it was merely a resolution and not a binding decision.
Whether the retroactive application of R.A. No. 10592 correctly alters the computation of the petitioner’s Good Conduct Time Allowance and other privileges, thereby affecting the effective length of his sentence.
Whether the determination of the actual time served and the appropriate computation for GCTA should be referred to the trial courts, which are better positioned to assess the factual nuances of the inmate’s confinement records.