FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
First Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S.B. No. 2014 
Introduced by Senator EDGARDO J. ANGARA 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Our present penal law provides that in instances where a person is convicted of a 
non-bailable offense or he is convicted of a bailable offense but cannot afford bail, he shall 
undergo preventive imprisonment Once entitled to preventive imprisonment, he must 
voluntarily agree in writing that he will abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon 
convicted grisoners, Otherwise, if no such written agreement is made, he will only be 
entitled to four-fifths of the period of detention, 
A review of many cases of prisoners show that this written agreement is often not 
completed for many reasons, either: a) the apprehending officers do not know this 
provision of law or have no forms; or b) the prisoner himself is not aware of the 
requirement; or c) neglect on the part of the prison officials as when the written agreement 
is lost or misplaced, 
No less than the Board of Pardons and Parole who review the cases of prisoners is 
of the view that the legal requirement should be reversed, The prisoner should be entitled 
in full for preventive imprisonment, except in cases specifically provided by law, without 
any written agreement This measure seeks to correct this iniquitous procedure and thus 
gives the offender full credit for his preventive imprisonment as the general rule without 
any written agreement If and when he does not agree to abide with said rules, should he be 
required to do so in writing and then be entitled to only four-fifths (4/5) of the period of 
detention, 
Another instance, of inequity is when a prisoner has undergone preventive 
imprisonment for the possible maximum imprisonment of the offenses charged and he is 
not released. A paragraph under Article 29 by virtue of BP BIg, 85 corrects this injustice, 
This amendment, however, needs further refinement The offender under detention should 
not undergo detention more than the maximum, instead it should be equal to the possible 
maximum imprisonment Moreover, since the prisoner, if he were to be convicted, would 
enjoy good conduct time allowance for actual period of detention, then the computation for 
purposes <;>f immediate release should be the actual period of detention plus good conduct 
time allowance as the maximum possible imprisonment 
,It is unjust to unduly delay the proceedings of a person already under detention, he 
should be given every possible opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the law, If good 
1 
" 


conduct time allowance is granted to convicted prisoners, this benefit should also be 
extended to the detention prisoner under Article 29, as amended by BP BIg. 85. 
In view of the foregoing, approval of this measure is earnestly sought. 
~/~ 
EDGARDO J. ANGARA 
2 


FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
11 J.l 26 1"3 :33 
First Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S.B. No. 2014 
Introduced by Senator EDGARDO J. ANGARA 
AN ACT 
AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO REQUIRE COMMUNITY SERVICE IN LIEU 
OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR, AMENDING 
FOR THAT PURPOSE ARTICLE 88 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, 
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
Be it enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in the 
Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Act No. 3815, as amended, Article 88 is hereby amended to read as 
2 
follows: 
3 
"ART. 88. Arresto Menor. - The penalty of arresto menor shall be 
4 
served on the municipal OR CITY jailor in the house of the defendant 
5 
himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so 
6 
provides in its decision, taking into consideration which may seem 
7 
satisfactory to it. 
8 
THE COURT MAY, IN LIEU OF SERVICE IN JAIL, MOTU 
9 
PROPIO, REQUIRE THAT THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR 
10 
BE 
SERVED 
BY 
THE 
DEFENDANT 
BY 
RENDERING 
11 
COMMUNITY SERVICE IN THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME 
12 
WAS COMMITTED, 
13 
UNDER 
SUCH 
TERMS 
AS 
THE 
COURT 
SHALL 
14 
DETERMINE AND UNDER THE SURVEILLANCE OF THE 
15 
BARANGAY 
CAPTAIN 
OF THE 
COMMUNITY 
AND 
A 
16 
PROBATION 
OFFICER. 
IN 
REQUIRING 
COMMUNITY 
17 
SERVICE, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE WELFARE OF 
18 
THE SOCIETY AND THE REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT 
1 


• 
1 
THE PERSON SENTENCED SHALL REMAIN AT LIBERTY 
2 
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW. 
3 
COMMUNITY SERVICE SHALL CONSIST OF ANY 
4 
ACTUAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY WHICH INCULCATES CIVIC 
5 
CONSCIOUSNESS, 
AND 
IS 
INTENDED 
TOWARDS 
THE 
6 
IMPROVEMENT OF A PUBLIC WORK OR PROMOTION OF A 
7 
PUBLIC SERVICE. SHOULD THE PERSON SENTENCED 
8 
VIOLATE THE TERMS FOR RENDERING COMMUNITY 
9 
SERVICE, THE COURT SHALL ORDER HIS RE-ARREST AND 
10 
THE PENALTY SHALL BE SERVED IN JAIL. 
11 
SHOULD THE PERSON SENTENCED COMPLY WITH 
12 
THE TERMS FOR RENDERING COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE 
13 
COURT SHALL RENDER AN ORDER THAT SENTENCE HAVE 
14 
BEEN FULLY SERVED. 
15 
THE 
PRIVILEGE 
OF 
RENDERING 
COMMUNITY 
16 
SERVICE IN LIEU OF SERVICE IN JAIL SHALL BE AVAILED 
17 
OF ONLY ONCE. 
18 
19 
SEC. 2. Separability Clause. If any provision, or part hereof held invalid or 
20 
unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall 
21 
remain valid and SUbsisting. 
22 
23 
SEC. 3. Repealing Clause. Articles 27 and 88 ofthe Revised Penal Code, is hereby 
24 
amended and any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, 
25 
administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to, or inconsistent with the provisions of 
26 
this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended accordingly. 
27 
28 
SEC. 4. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
29 
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, 
30 
whichever comes first. 
31 
32 
Approved, 
2