Practice question
At a trial for theft, a prosecutor presents a police record listing two earlier theft arrests. The record contains no judgment, no proof that either charge resulted in conviction, and no proof of finality. The prosecutor contends that repeated arrests are enough to establish recidivism. How should the court rule on that contention?
- Accept it because two arrests equal one final conviction.
- Accept it because the offenses listed have the same name.
- Reject it because repeated arrests do not prove the required previous conviction by final judgment.
- Accept it unless the accused proves innocence of every old accusation.
- Treat the accused as a habitual delinquent automatically.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 14(9), 14(10), 62(5) and 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
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.