Practice question
A party offers a prior act solely to argue, 'She did it once, so she must have done it this time.' No separate relevant purpose is identified. What does Section 35 provide?
- The bare similar-conduct inference is not a proper use
- The inference is always conclusive
- The prior act automatically shifts the ultimate burden of proof
- Every previous act must be admitted
- The opponent must admit the current claim
Legal references
- 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130 Sections 35–36 and Rule 128 Sections 3–4: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.