Practice question
A business owner imposes an otherwise lawful contractual condition solely to prevent a witness from appearing in a criminal investigation. The evidence establishes the knowing obstructive purpose. He argues that section 1(h) cannot reach him because the condition itself was lawful. Which is correct?
- The lawful nature of the condition necessarily defeats the provision
- Only an unlawful condition is mentioned in section 1(h)
- The provision expressly includes a condition whether lawful or unlawful imposed for the specified prevention of appearance
- The purpose is immaterial whenever a contract exists
- Only a threat of physical injury may ever be obstruction
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1981/pd_1829_1981.html — PD 1829, sections 1(a)–(i) and 2, knowing or willful obstruction through enumerated acts and public-official disqualification.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.