Former Batangas Gov.

Jose Antonio
Leviste vs NBI and other opposing
parties
 Is he qualified for parole after NBI filed a
complained of evasion of sentence and have he
already served his minimum to be granted of
parole?
 In 2009, a Makati court found Leviste guilty of
homicide for killing his longtime employee,
Rafael de las Alas, in Leviste's office at the LPL
Tower in Makati on Jan 12, 2007. Probers said
Leviste repeatedly shot de las Alas in the head.
 He was first detained in 2007 in a local jail, the
year he shot de las Alas. Upon his conviction in
2009, he was brought to the NBP.
 Co said the basis for the parole included the
time Leviste spent in a local jail, which makes
his detention a total of 6 years.
 The prosecution initially charged Leviste with
murder but the court convicted him for the lesser
offense of homicide. Makati Regional Trial Court
150 Judge Elmo Alameda ruled in his January
2009 verdict that the shooting to death of de las
Alas did not appear to be premeditated.
 In May 2011, the National Bureau of Investigation
filed a complaint of evasion of service of sentence
against Leviste.
 This was after an ABS-CBN public affairs program
exposed that Leviste was allowed to freely leave
the NBP compound in Muntinlupa 3 times that
year.
 He was punished to serve a minimum sentence of
six years and a maximum sentence of 12 years, but
it was slashed to just a little under five years after
he earned "good conduct time allowance."
 Tesoro said such allowance is earned when a prisoner
"has no derogatory conduct and record based on
presumed prison rules and regulations."
 He was sent behind NBP bars on January 26, 2009, but
his penalty commenced only on May 29, 2010 when the
Makati court hearing his case handed down the guilty
verdict.
 Leviste re-emerged in the headlines in May 2011 when
he was reported to have "escaped" from prison. He was
re-arrested, transferred to the maximum security
facility, and was slapped with fresh charges of evasion
of service of sentence.
 Leaving NBP grounds was nothing new for Leviste, as
then NBP assistant director Teodora Diaz claimed the
former Batangas governor had left the NBP compound
four times in the past, three of them through the main
gate.
 His May 2011 "escape" prompted officials from the
Department of Justice and the National Bureau of
Investigation to conduct an investigation at the
NBP, especially on so-called "sleeping out"
prisoners like Leviste.
 Because of old age, the then 71-year-old Leviste –
soon after his conviction in 2009 – was awarded
"sleep out" privileges, which was normally given
to inmates 65 years old and above.
 He also later obtained "living out" status, which
means that he is not detained at the maximum
security facility but only within the NBP
compound in Muntinlupa City.
 After his re-arrest, Leviste has since been kept
inside the NBP Maximum Security Compound.
 In their probe, the DOJ and NBI inspected a pair of
abandoned bamboo huts or kubol that Leviste
allegedly constructed and where he used to stay
before his "escape."
 The two huts – one served as Leviste's house and
the other his office – were sitting on the edge of a
lagoon in an area that has no perimeter fence.
 Originally considered a minimum security and
"sleep out" prisoner, Leviste did not only have the
privilege to freely roam the NBP compound but he
also had the freedom to build his own house on
designated areas inside.
 Authorities said Leviste belongs an elite group of
"two to three" inmates who had enough funds to
construct their own kubol.
 The DOJ and NBI eventually discovered security lapses
inside the national penitentiary, with two NBP officials
and eight non-officers ending up being suspended and
probed.
 During the joint team's ocular inspection, investigators
noticed the gates had no closed-circuit television
(CCTV) camera installed to monitor the vehicles going
in and out of the compound.
 There was not even a logbook in one of the three
guardhouses near the gates.
 In early 2010, Leviste was allowed to leave the NBP to
undergo a dental check-up in Makati City.
 Leviste could have spent an additional six years to be
added to his sentence had he been found guilty of
evasion of service of sentence. However, Tesoro said
the Makati court that handled his case eventually
cleared him of the new charges.
 Leviste had already served the minimum jail
term meted on him - a minimum of 6 years and
a maximum of 12 years. He said Leviste's age,
73, was also a consideration. His preventive
imprisonment count as part of his serving of
sentene.
 “According to law, he will still have to undergo
surveillance. He will still have reporting
requirements as part of the administrative
process, so he also must comply with these
requirements,”
 That he has already served his minimum sentence and
considerations of his age.
 In May 2011, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a
complaint of evasion of service of sentence against Leviste. This
was after an ABS-CBN public affairs program exposed that
Leviste was allowed to freely leave the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP) compound in Muntinlupa 3 times that year.
 After Leviste defended himself saying “he was legitimately
outside because he was given a green light by the prison officers,”
Branch 62 of the Makati RTC acquitted him and his driver Nilo
Solis de Guzman.
 A fact-finding panel of the justice department found that NBP
officials gave Leviste sleep-out privileges without the approval of
the Bureau of Corrections. The justice department later dismissed
the officials who approved these privileges.
 Even Alas family didn’t oppose the parole to be granted. Only
other opposition and media are making issue
 Why the preventive imprisonment is counted in
his minimum sentence and his issue of going out
many times in a year is clear case of evasion of
sentence.
 The fact that many video of him showing going
out of the NBP compound and also NBI already
filed a case of evasion of sentence hence it was
very fast to be dismissed.
 A clear indication of power over power is
prevailing in this country specially on the BuCor.
 Even if it is legal why is the incident forced the
resignation of Bureau of Corrections (BuCor)
Director Ernesto Diokno.