Posted: May 18th, 2017

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?

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%)