Practice question
After a wound, a victim later dies of infection. The prosecution’s evidence leaves reasonable doubt whether that infection came from the original wound or a distinct later source. The accused argues that every infection always breaks causation. Which is correct?
- Every infection automatically establishes an intervening cause
- Every infection automatically proves the original attacker caused death
- The prosecution’s causal gap matters, but there is no categorical rule that all infections break the chain
- The accused must prove the exact alternative source beyond reasonable doubt
- The medical uncertainty automatically erases every proven injury offense
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Article 4(1): causal responsibility for consequences.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_155791_2005.html — Quinto v. Andres, G.R. 155791, March 16, 2005, main decision: distinct foreign active cause and criminal causation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_238798_2023.html — CICL XXX v. People, G.R. 238798, March 14, 2023, main decision: alleged medical delay does not automatically break the injury-to-death chain.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/sep2011/gr_186412_2011.html — People v. Villacorta, G.R. 186412, September 7, 2011, main decision: evidentiary failure linking the initial wound to fatal infection, not a categorical infection rule.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.