Practice question
An accused is prosecuted for a common crime. The defense proves that the accused belongs to a rebel group and that rebellion was ongoing nearby, but supplies no evidence that this particular offense furthered a political end. It argues that affiliation and proximity alone compel absorption. Under Lovedioro, which is correct?
- The two facts automatically establish the missing purpose.
- Every rebel-group member is immune from common-crime prosecution.
- Political motive need not be established in any case.
- The asserted facts alone do not establish absorption; the particular act's political connection must be demonstrated.
- The prosecution must abandon the case solely because rebellion occurred nearby.
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.