Evidence: Can previous acts be used as evidence to prove present or future acts?

Rule 130, Sec. 34 . Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (48a)

General Rule: Previous conduct cannot be admitted as evidence. It cannot be used to prove presents act or future acts.

Exceptions: Previous conduct may be used to prove the following:

1. to prove specific intent or knowledge;
2. to prove identity;
3. to prove a plan, system, design, modus operandi; and
4. to prove habit, custom, usage or practice.

Collolarily, in the philosophical circle, Heidegger teaches that Dasein [man] though a being-in-the-word [having facticity and historicity] has a potentiality for being.  This implies Dasein's fallenness [to the "they"-crowd] will not be perpetual, since he can flight from his plight and grip his potentiality-for-being and experience resoluteness. Dasein then is a thrown thrower. In other words, Heidegger, believes that life is full of surprises, and one of that surprises is Dasein's desires for authenticity and resoluteness.

Thus, it would be irrational to use Dasein's fallenness as a measure of his present of future acts.

Moreover, freshman logic is instructive specifically the fallacy of Non-sequitor.

Non sequitur- (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

Two examples include:

• "If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog." (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated.)
• "I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining." (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Scenario: there was a robbery. Santi was caught in the perimeter where it took place.

Asserting the claim:
       He is the robber  because he  robbed banks in the past, is non sequitor.

      There is no logical relation and connection between the premise and the conclusion. Being a robber in the past has nothing to do with the act of robbery that had just been committed, in the absence of any evidence of Santi's participation.