During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to wit:
(1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and habituality or reiteracion against AA. Under Article 14(9) of the RPC, recidivism exists when the accused, at the time of trial, was previously convicted by final
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What aggravating circumstance exists when an accused on trial for Theft was previously convicted by final judgment of Robbery and Estafa?
Prior final convictions for crimes under the same title of the RPC establish recidivism.
What essential element distinguishes Reiteracion under Article 14(10) RPC from Recidivism under Article 14(9) RPC?
Reiteracion requires actual service of sentence for prior offenses, unlike recidivism which requires final conviction.
Why are prior convictions for Robbery, Theft, and Estafa grouped together for Recidivism in a subsequent Theft trial?
Robbery, theft, and estafa are all embraced in Title Ten of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 62(5) of the RPC, what period governs the applicability of Habitual Delinquency for specified crimes?
Choices available with full access.
Which circumstance is NOT required to appreciate Recidivism under Article 14, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Recidivism
Under Article 14, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code, recidivism is an aggravating circumstance that exists when the offender, at the time of trial for one crime, was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the code. In prosecutions for theft, prior final convictions for robbery, theft, or estafa establish recidivism because all these offenses are classified as crimes against property under Title Ten of Book Two. Recidivism automatically attaches upon proof of final judgment regardless of whether the offender actually served sentence for the prior crimes.
2. Reiteracion
Under Article 14, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code, reiteracion or habituality exists when the offender has been previously punished for two or more offenses to which the law attaches an equal or lighter penalty, or for one offense to which the law attaches a heavier penalty. Unlike recidivism, reiteracion requires that the offender was previously punished by serving sentence for prior crimes, and the prior offenses need not belong to the same title of the code as the present felony.
3. Habitual Delinquency
Under Article 62, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, habitual delinquency requires that the offender, within a period of ten years from date of release or last conviction of serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. If prior convictions occurred outside the ten-year period or if the statutory ten-year rule is not met, habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated, but recidivism or reiteracion may still aggravate the penalty.