Practice question
A court identifies a compatible general RPC principle for a special-law gap. It then assumes that compatibility also supplies missing proof of an accused’s actual participation. Which analytical error has occurred?
- Article 10 automatically proves every fact
- A legal rule’s availability has been confused with evidence establishing its factual requirements
- A special-law gap removes the presumption of innocence
- Compatibility converts allegations into convictions
- A general principle eliminates all offense elements
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Articles 8, 10 and 22, as applicable: https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html
- Ladonga v. People, GR 141066, February 17, 2005, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_141066_2005.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.