Practice question
For a completed offense, the law at the time required a particular quantum and kind of proof. A later statute expressly applies backward and permits conviction on less evidence that would previously have been legally insufficient. Officials defend it solely as a procedural label. Which analysis follows Trillanes’s stated ex post facto categories?
- Every measure labeled procedural is immune from scrutiny.
- The adverse retrospective lowering of conviction-proof requirements falls within the identified concern; the label alone does not cure the effect.
- Less evidence is never relevant to criminal consequences.
- The law automatically becomes favorable to the accused because it is shorter.
- The Constitution forbids courts from examining the temporal effect.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 22: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 and 256078, April 3, 2024, main decision, ex post facto and attainder discussion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_241494_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.