Practice question
A victim’s original criminal injury remains an established cause of fatal blood loss. A second event adds difficulty to rescue but is not proved independent or sufficient to displace the injury’s continuous fatal role. The defense relies only on calling it intervening. What is required?
- A genuine efficient causal break, not the label or mere contribution of another circumstance
- Every added difficulty automatically breaks causation
- The word intervening conclusively decides the issue
- The original injury must be ignored whenever another event occurs
- Only the earliest witness can define causation
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Articles3-4 and49, as applicable: https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html
- Quinto v. Andres, GR155791, March16 2005, main decision, criminal causation: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_155791_2005.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.