Practice question
An offender has completed punishment for a prior Code offense in a different title. The law attaches a greater penalty to that prior offense than to the new offense. Reiteración is properly alleged and the prior judgment and punishment are proved. The defense argues that at least two prior crimes are always necessary. Which is correct?
- The argument is incorrect; one qualifying equal-or-greater prior offense satisfies the separate statutory alternative.
- Two prior crimes are necessary under every branch.
- Only public reputation can determine the circumstance.
- The prior offense's legal penalty is irrelevant.
- The new offense is automatically erased by prior punishment.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — Revised Penal Code Article14(10), reiteración or habituality.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/sep1996/gr_109767_1996.html — People v. Monterey, G.R.109767, September3 1996, main opinion on Article14(10); no obsolete penalty amounts applied.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.