M2: Historical Criticism Learning Activity 3

Reinforcement Activity 3:

Direction: Assess yourself with the following cases. What would you think or do if presented with
the following?

Questions:

1. A person selling a bar of gold approached you. The person says it is pure gold and showed
you a shining, gold-colored metal bar. He gave you a price and will turn over you the gold
bar if you would give him the money.
2. A person tells you that a member of your family met an accident and asks you to meet him
with a certain amount of money as down payment for the hospital bill.
3. Somebody came out in the media accusing another person to be a crook.

Answers:

1. When it happens to me that someone will give me a gold bar in exchange for the price he
said, I will not accept it. Even if we say that we are talking about gold here, I still won't
accept it because what if it's not real gold, what if it's just from a thief who wants to sell it to
me. And besides, what would I do with gold if I had money? I will not accept it if the price he
gave is even more suspicious. I would rather have real money (coins) than gold that I can't
use at that time. This is just my opinion.
2. In this situation I know it is wrong. Because a stranger said he needed money to pay for the
hospital. This is why it is necessary for the hospital to call the family member of the accident
victim if they really had an accident. And if this really happened, the person who called me
must have identified himself. This happened to my aunt, her aunt left that day and the only
person in their house was their maid, someone suddenly rang the doorbell and said that the
owner of the house had an accident and needed money, and what the maid did was he
even let her inside the house so my aunt was robbed in their house. For me, what the
assistant should have done was to call aunt first if there was an accident or not. She first
asked who the owner of the house was. When we were young, we were taught not to talk to
strangers and not to let anyone in if we didn't know them or if the owner of the house didn't
tell us, expecting him to come to them.
 3. In my opinion in this situation, don't make accusations without proof. Because as far as I
know there is a law in our country it is Article 66 Presumption of Innocence what is stated
here is (Basic is the rule that an accused must be presumed innocent until his guilt is
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.) They first need to find evidence that proves
he is guilty. And because when they make a mistake in judgment they can be charged
because there is also a law that says (The crime of false accusation or denunciation is
committed by falsely imputing to any person acts which, if they were true, would constitute a
crime that would give rise to proceedings ex officio if the imputation were made before an
administrative or judicial official who would be obliged to proceed to his investigation or
punishment by reason of his office.) So fake news is prohibited, evidence is required first.

References:

 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1911/nov1911/gr_l-6807_1911.html#:~:text=The%20crime
%20of%20false%20accusation,obliged%20to%20proceed%20to%20its
 https://cjad.nottingham.ac.uk/en/legislation/717/keyword/311/#:~:text=Article
%2066%20Presumption%20of%20innocence&text=Everyone%20shall%20be%20presumed
%20innocent,2.