Practice question
A tribunal says a common impulse automatically resolves both Article48 branches. It finds neither one physical act nor that one offense served as necessary means, and no special composite law governs. Which correction is needed?
- Analyze the actual statutory branches; common impulse cannot replace both missing relationships
- The phrase itself creates any desired merger
- Every common motive is necessarily one physical act
- No components need be proved
- The tribunal may disregard Article48’s wording
Legal references
- People v Mision GR63480 February26,1991 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_63480_1991.html
- People v Nelmida GR184500 September11,2012 ENBANC MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_184500_2012.html
- People v Reyes GR260030 May19,2025 MAIN, Article48 and public-fund falsification: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.