Practice question
Omar is detained in a penal institution after conviction, but his earlier conviction remains on appeal and has not become final. While there, he commits a new felony. The prosecutor proves his location and earlier trial-court conviction but no prior final judgment. Applying the finality principle illustrated in People v Capillas, what is the proper conclusion?
- Quasi-recidivism is established by the prison address alone.
- Quasi-recidivism is not established because the required previous final judgment is absent.
- Every conviction is final as soon as the trial judge signs it.
- Detention automatically waives the finality requirement.
- The new felony is necessarily noncriminal until the appeal ends.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Article 160.
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 Sections 8–9, allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- People v Alicia, G.R. No. L-38176, January 22, 1980, main decision, Article 160 requisites and prior special-law conviction (not obsolete death penalties): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_38176_1980.html
- People v Capillas, G.R. No. L-38756, November 13, 1984, main decision, prior final judgment required (not obsolete death penalties): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/nov1984/gr_l-38756_1984.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.