Practice question
A principal in a covered abduction validly marries the adult offended party. His accomplice is separately convicted of an unrelated theft. He invokes Article344 to erase both his participation in the abduction and the independent theft conviction. Which distinction controls?
- The extension concerns the covered abduction, not an unrelated theft
- All convictions disappear once any principal marries
- Theft becomes abduction after marriage
- The accomplice’s own wedding is always indispensable
- The marriage is automatically void because another offender exists
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, relevant Articles: https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html Article344, marriage and co-offenders; Articles89 and113.
- RA8353 rape-specific Article266-C: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8353_1997.html
- RA11596 valid-marriage limitation: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11596_2021.html
- RA11648 current sexual-offense amendments: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11648_2022.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.