Practice question
An accused’s hostility toward the victim is proved, but identification is uncertain and no reliable evidence establishes participation in the attack. The prosecution says hostility fills every evidentiary gap. Which is correct?
- Hostility conclusively establishes the attacker’s identity
- A possible motive cannot replace proof that the accused committed the charged acts
- The accused must prove who else attacked
- Every hostile person is equally guilty
- An explanation of why removes the need to prove what occurred
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Article 3: deliberate intent and fault.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/gr_120921_1998.html — People v. Ballesteros, G.R. 120921, January 29, 1998, main decision: motive distinguished from intent and motive alone insufficient.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_228232_2023.html — Pineda v. People, G.R. 228232, March 27, 2023, main decision: intent, motive and culpable negligence.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.