Practice question
A judgment imposes a separate lawful penalty for each of several distinct offenses. Their aggregate stated duration exceeds forty years. Counsel argues that the judgment is automatically invalid and must state only one forty-year penalty. Under Mejorada and Escares, what is the correct approach?
- Erase every sentence after the first.
- Replace all separate penalties with one offense.
- Impose the proper separate penalties, then apply Article 70's limits in their service.
- Require service of every year without any Article 70 limit.
- Let the prosecutor choose which convictions survive.
Legal references
- Commonwealth Act No. 217, Section 2 amending RPC Article 70, simultaneous and successive service and threefold rule: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/29/15348
- Mejorada v Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987, main decision, service rather than imposition: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jun1987/gr_l-51065_1987.html
- People v Escares, G.R. Nos. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957, main decision, separate penalties and Article 70 service: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1957/dec1957/gr_l-11128-33_1957.html
- RA 9346, Sections 1–4, death-penalty prohibition, substitute penalties and clemency: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9346_2006.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.