Practice question
Tomas was finally convicted of theft, fully served the sentence, and years later committed estafa. Both crimes fall within Title Ten. His identity and the previous final conviction are proved, and recidivism is adequately alleged. Counsel argues that completion of the old sentence prevents recidivism because the new crime was not committed while imprisoned. Which answer is best?
- Counsel is correct because all repetition requires current imprisonment.
- Counsel is incorrect: Article 14(9) does not require the new crime to occur during service of the prior sentence.
- Counsel is correct because only identical offenses can qualify.
- Tomas is automatically a quasi-recidivist solely because he once served a sentence.
- Neither conviction can be considered because time has elapsed.
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.