Practice question
In a plunder trial, the prosecution says Section4 permits conviction upon suspicion of an overall scheme without proving a pattern beyond reasonable doubt or the threshold amount. Defense counsel insists that every single alleged component act must necessarily produce a separate prior conviction. Which is best?
- Both positions accurately state Section4
- Suspicion is sufficient whenever a public officer is accused
- Prior convictions for every act are expressly indispensable
- Section4 permits proof of the required pattern without proving every act, but retains beyond-reasonable-doubt proof and the offense’s elements
- The amount element disappears at trial
Legal references
- RA7080 Section4; Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.148560, November19 2001: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7080_1991.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.