Practice question
A case contains reliable circumstantial proof of participation and a supported motive. The defense says motive is never relevant because it is not ordinarily an essential element. What correction is needed?
- Not ordinarily being an element does not make motive irrelevant as contextual evidence; the complete proof must still establish guilt
- Motive is always inadmissible
- Motive alone conclusively proves guilt
- Context may replace every criminal element
- A missing personal reason always requires acquittal
Legal references
- People v. Ballesteros, GR120921, January29 1998, main decision, intent and motive: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/gr_120921_1998.html
- Revised Penal Code, Articles3-4 and49, as applicable: https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.