Practice question
In a disputed-identity case, the proponent offers a prior act only on the asserted specific identity issue and expressly disclaims the inference that a person acted badly before and therefore did so again. Does section 35 require the court to distinguish these uses?
- No, every past act always proves current guilt.
- Yes; propensity use and a properly supported specific identity use have different treatment, with other admissibility requirements still applicable.
- No, all prior acts are absolutely excluded for every purpose.
- Yes; merely saying identity conclusively proves admissibility.
- No, because identity can never be disputed.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html — Rule 128 section 3; Rule 130 sections 27–29, 34–35 and 37; Rule 132 section 34: purpose-specific admissibility.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/nov1955/gr_l-9181_1955.html — People v. Yatco, G.R. L-9181, November 28, 1955, main opinion: multiple admissibility, subject to current safeguards.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.