Practice question
A criminal provision clearly defines prohibited operation of an identified device without a specified permit. The defendant disputes that he operated the device at all. Counsel argues this factual disagreement alone makes the statute vague, even while admitting the rule’s legal meaning is clear for the charged conduct. Which assessment is correct?
- Every disputed fact makes the governing law void
- A clear prohibition removes the need for proof
- A defendant’s denial is itself a legislative ambiguity
- Vagueness and proof of conduct are the same question
- The factual dispute must be resolved through the required proof; it does not alone establish constitutional uncertainty in the law
Legal references
- People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l-44143_1988.html
- Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.