Practice question
A declaration was made after the alleged conspiracy had ended. It is offered against a co-accused solely under the co-conspirator rule, conditionally on later independent proof of a conspiracy. Independent proof is eventually produced. Does that alone cure the timing problem?
- Yes, proving conspiracy eliminates every other requirement.
- Yes, every confession is automatically a conspirator statement.
- Yes, conditional reception rewrites when the declaration occurred.
- No; current section 31 also requires a declaration during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and conditional admission does not erase those requirements.
- No; independent proof of conspiracy is never relevant.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html — Rule 128 sections 3–4; Rule 130 section 31; Rule 132 section 39: required connection, conspiracy foundation and striking improper evidence.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/nov1955/gr_l-9181_1955.html — People v. Yatco, G.R. L-9181, November 28, 1955, main opinion: provisional reception on a promised later connection, subject to final exclusion requirements.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.