Practice question
A wife is present when her husband signs and issues a dishonored check. The prosecution invokes Ladonga and Article 10 but proves no agreement, overt assistance, or other participation by her in the alleged common design. It argues that suppletory conspiracy rules automatically establish her guilt. Which is correct?
- The availability of the conspiracy doctrine does not supply missing proof; presence and marriage alone do not establish the alleged complicity.
- Marriage conclusively proves conspiracy.
- Article 10 removes the reasonable-doubt standard.
- Every person present at issuance is necessarily a principal.
- Conspiracy becomes an independent BP 22 offense solely through pleading.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 8 and 10.
- Ladonga v People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005, main decision, Article 10 and proof of conspiracy: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_141066_2005.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.