Practice question
While serving a final sentence for an offense punished under a special law, Noel commits a new felony under the Revised Penal Code. The prior judgment, service of sentence, and new felony are properly alleged and proved. He argues that quasi-recidivism is impossible because the earlier offense was not under the Code. Under People v Alicia, which conclusion is correct?
- The argument is correct; both offenses must be Code felonies.
- The argument is correct unless both offenses have the same name.
- The prior special-law conviction does not prevent Article 160 from applying to the new Code felony under the stated conditions.
- The new felony is absorbed by the old special-law offense.
- Only the prior offense may be punished.
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.