Flashcards Studio

Facts: In a criminal case for armed robbery, the People seek to admit evidence that in 2023, the accused robbed a different store, wearing a gray hoodie and a helmet, and using a pistol to threaten the cashier, escaping with ₱60,000. In the present case, the accused is charged with robbing Store X on a later date, with a strikingly similar MO: helmet, gray hoodie, pistol, and a quick getaway. The People offer the 2023 incident to establish that the accused committed the current robbery by proving a common plan or by identification. The defense objects, arguing that prior conduct is not admissible to prove propensity to commit crime.
(a) Identify the controlling doctrine governing "previous conduct as evidence" and the specific exceptions that might apply in this context.
(b) Distinguish whether the prior act could be admissible to prove identity or to prove a common plan, noting the conditions that must be satisfied and the dangers of prejudice.
(c) Apply to the facts: should the 2023 robbery be admitted for the current case? Why or why not? If admitted, what limiting instructions and safeguards should the court provide to ensure proper use of the evidence?