Practice question
When an offense was committed, the law required specified corroborating testimony to sustain conviction. A later statute applies to that past offense and allows conviction on less testimony than previously legally required, while keeping the sentence unchanged. The State says it is merely evidence law. What is correct?
- No ex post facto issue can arise unless the prison term increases
- The evidentiary label is conclusive
- A retroactive reduction of the legally required proof to convict can fall within the prohibited categories despite an unchanged sentence
- All evidentiary amendments are necessarily prohibited in every case
- The accused must consent to any future court scheduling order
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — Constitution, Article III section 22: prohibition of ex post facto laws.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_128096_1999.html — Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 128096, January 20, 1999, main decision: ex post facto categories and procedural jurisdiction distinguished from prohibited penal retroactivity.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — Revised Penal Code Articles21–22: prior penalty law and favorable retroactivity, subject to the habitual-criminal limitation.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.