Practice question
A participant commits two distinct offenses during a proven rebellion. For the first, evidence establishes that the act was part of and in furtherance of the political uprising. For the second, the evidence conclusively shows only personal profit unrelated to that uprising. The defense insists that the first offense's political character must automatically carry over to the second. Which answer is best?
- Both are automatically absorbed because of the offender's identity.
- Each act's purpose matters; the first may be absorbed on the stipulated connection, while the second is not absorbed on the stated private purpose.
- Neither can ever be absorbed despite the proved connection.
- The second becomes political merely because it followed the first.
- The private-profit offense automatically erases the rebellion.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/nov1995/gr_112235_1995.html — People v. Lovedioro, G.R.112235, November29 1995, main opinion, political-purpose requirement and private-purpose exception.
- https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/jun1990/gr_92163_1990.html — Enrile v. Salazar, G.R.92163 and92164, June5 1990, main opinion reaffirming Hernandez absorption doctrine.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.