Practice question
A damaged watch has a rare engraving and a distinctive broken clasp observed by its owner before and immediately after a robbery. At trial she identifies both features. The defense says all watches are non-unique because the manufacturer produced many. Which is best?
- Mass manufacture always prevents identification
- The actual identifying characteristics can make this watch readily distinguishable
- The watch is automatically the robber’s confession
- The owner’s knowledge is irrelevant
- The engraving makes the robbery conclusively proved
Legal references
- People v. Olarte, G.R. 233209, March 11, 2019: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/mar2019/gr_233209_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.