Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAW 1 REVIEWER
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
134
B. Passive Subject (Injured Party)
The passive subject of a crime is the holder of the injured right:
the man, the juristic person, and the state.
General Rule: Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject. As
such, the dead and animals have no rights that may be injured.
o Exception: Article 353, the crime of defamation may be
committed if the imputation tends to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
V. Anti-Hazing Law (Republic Act No. 8094)
A. Principals
Those who actually participated in the hazing.
Parent of a frat/sorority member who owned the place where
the hazing occurred, knew of it but still did not do anything to
stop it.
Officers, former officers, alumni who planned it, even if they
werent there.
Fraternity or sorority advisor who was present but didnt stop
it.
Anyone present who did not prevent it.
B. Accomplices
Owner of the place where the hazing occurred and who knew
of the hazing and did not stop it.
School authorities who actually knew and consented to it.
VI. Command Responsibility
A. Philippine Context
General Rule: There is not command responsibility in Philippine
law.
Article 17. Principals.
The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
POINTS
I. Two Or More Persons Participating In The Crime
Single individual committing a crime is always a principal by
direct participation (take direct part in the execution of the
act).
(Par 1.) Principal by direct participation
(Par 2.) Principal by induction
(Par 3.) Principal by indispensible cooperation
II. Difference Between A Principal Under Any Of The Three Categories
Enumerated In Article 17 And A Co-Conspirator
Principal in Article 17: criminal liability is limited to his own acts
Co-conspirator: (His) responsibility includes the acts of his
fellow conspirators (People v. Peralta)
PAR 1: THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACT. (PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
135
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
136
B. Existence Of Conspiracy
Existence of conspiracy does not require an agreement for an
appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
137
C. Proof Of Conspiracy
Direct evidence of conspiracy: interlocking judicial confessions
of several accused and the testimony of one accused who is
discharged and made a witness against his co-accused who did
not make any confession.
o In the absence of any collusion among the declarants,
their confessions may form a complete picture of the
whole situation and may be considered collectively as
corroborative and/or confirmatory of the evidence
independent therefrom (People v. Castelo)
o Two or more extrajudicial confessions given separately,
untainted by collusion, and which tally with one
another in all material respects, are admissible as
evidence of the conspiracy of the declarants. (People v.
bernardo)
o To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proofs to the previous agreement and decision to
commit the crime it is sufficient that the malefactors
shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective. (People v. San Luis)
Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several
persons not necessary in conspiracy.
o In conspiracy, no formal agreement among the
conspirators is necessary, not even previous
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
138
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
139
D. Unity Of Purpose And Intention In The Commission Of The Crime Is
Shown In The Following Cases: (Evidences Of Joint Responsibility)
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of
the crime sufficient to create joint responsibility.
o Example: Acceptance of two accused of the challenge
posted by the deceased and their concert attack on the
same clearly showed a community of purpose and
design. (People v. Ibanez)
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of
the crime.
o Example: A struck deceased, B whipped lips of
deceased, C seized deceaseds left hand while D held
the right, E stabbed deceased with knife.
Held: No proof of anterior conspiracy but the manner
in which accused cooperated in the perpetration of the
homicide shows they were moved by a common motive
and their intention was to kill deceased
Dissenting: Only individual responsibility in this case for
only E gave the fatal blow
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
140
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
141
G. Liability Of Participants Where There Is Conspiracy
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Collective criminal responsibility
U.S. v. Bundal Defendants after conspiring together to kill
deceased, went to his house for purposes of carrying out their
intent and prepared to cooperate to that end (even though
having different roles in the commission) all will be held equally
guilty as principals irrespective of the individual participation of
each in the material act of the murder
Conspiracy adequately proven = all conspirators liable as coprincipals. The degree of actual participation by each of the
conspirators is immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally
responsible for the acts of their co-conspirators. (People v. De
la Cruz)
Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the
conspirators are liable for its consequences.
o People v. Villamora There was no conspiracy to kill
deceased and Barauel only hit him with an iron bar.
Held: Since there was conspiracy to punish Acuna, with
resulted to his death, ALL the conspirators are
responsible for the consequences that arose from the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
142
H. Liability Of A Conspirator For Another Conspirators Acts Which
Differ Radically And Substantially From That Which They Intended To
Commit.
Conspirator should necessarily be liable for the acts of another
conspirator even though such acts differ radically or
substantially from that which they intended to commit. (People
v. Enriquez)
Boyd v. U.S. Wound made with the knife on leg of person
assaulted was the primary cause of death and the author of this
injury has not been identified (the attorneys of the accused
defended that the infliction of injury by means of a cutting
instrument was not within the scope of the agreement and that
the one who should be held liable is the one who inflicted the
wound). Held: The Court did not agree. Accused had
undoubtedly conspired to do so grave personal injury to the
deceased which have resulted in death, the accused cannot
escape from the legal effects of their acts that a wound was
inflicted in a different way from that which they intended.
As has been said by the U.S. Supreme Court: If a number of
persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a
crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery,
all of them are responsible for the death of a person that
ensues as a consequence
o U.S. v. Patten Conspirators who join in a criminal
attack on a defenseless man with dangerous weapons
victim knocked down tries to escape pursues him
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
143
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
144
There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through
negligence.
Conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a decision to
commit a felony, when it appears that the injuries inflicted on
the offended party were due to the reckless imprudence of two
or more persons, it is not proper to consider conspiracy
between or among them.
In cases of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by special law,
allowing or failing to prevent an act to be performed by another,
makes one a co-principal.
People v. Santos professional driver of passenger truck let
his conductor drive the truck and they had an accident with a
jeepney which resulted to the death of one its passengers
Held: Both the driver and the conductor were held liable as coprincipals of homicide and damage to property through
reckless imprudence under Act. No 3992 and Article 365 of
RPC.
U.S. v. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong a storeowners employee
sold adulterated coffee and the storeowner did not know that
the coffee was sold by his employee
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
145
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
146
C. When The Second Requisite Is Lacking, There Is Only Conspiracy To
Commit A Crime
IF this 2nd requisite is lacking: there is, at most, only conspiracy
among several defendants who participated in criminal
resolution; if the crime they agreed and decided to commit is
not treason, rebellion or sedition, they are not criminally liable.
Example:
o People v. Asaad Four accused merely attended
conferences and assented out of respect and fear and
after commission of murders they joined other accused
in celebrating with a fiesta, by way of custom, they
were neither co-principals nor accomplices
o People v. Timbol Dalmacio Timbol was acquitted of
the charge of murder because he merely conspired
with his co-accused to kill deceased but left the place
before they began shooting him.
o People v. Pelagio Gs participation in the first
meeting involved him in the conspiracy because he told
the other the location of the house to be robbed, this
however is inadequate to make him criminally liable as
a conspirator. This because conspiracy alone without
execution of its purpose is not a crime punishable by
law except in special instances which does not include
robbery. (Article 8)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
147
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
148
D. Elements To Hold Person Liable As Principal By Inducement
Through The Use Of Commands
All five requisites must be present in order that a person using
words of command be held liable as principal by inducement:
1. That the one uttering the words of command must have the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime.
2. That the one who made the command must have an
ascendancy or influence over the person who acted.
o U.S. v. Ganao When B (a very influential figure in
their community) selected A (his nephew who was poor
and depended on him) to commit the crime the
influence exercised by B over A was so great and
powerful that the latter could not resist it.
3. That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so
powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion.
o Efficacious a person who makes accused believe that
the person to be killed was the one who stole the
accuseds property = guilty as principal by inducement;
even though the accused seem to have a personal
reason, it was the inductor who made him believe so.
o Powerful U.S. v. Ganao.
4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the
commission of the crime.
o This requisite is lacking when the commission of the
crime has already been commenced when the words of
inducement are uttered.
o A son who was already in combat with another was
told by the father Hit him the father was not
responsible for the injuries inflicted after advice given
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
149
People v. Alcontin
o (First requisite) A married woman suggested to her
paramour that he kill her husband; Held: the
proposition of the woman constituted something more
than mere counsel or advice that her co-defendant was
entirely free to accept or not.
o (Second requisite) The married womans promise of
being able to freely live together with the paramour
was the determining cause of the commission of the
crime
People v. Caimbre
o Facts: Appellant was being prosecuted for uttering you
had better kill him when his co-accused was attacking
the victim.
o Held: Appellant was acquitted because he lacked the
first requisite because there was nothing to show that
appellant had any reason to have Olipmo killed; lacked
second requisite because he had no sufficient moral
influence over co-accused to make him obey blindly;
and fourth requisite was lacking because his co-accused
had already boloed the victim before he uttered the
words
VI. FIRST ELEMENT: That The Inducement Be Made Directly With The
Intention Of Procuring The Commission Of The Crime
The principal by inducement should be obeyed.
A. A Thoughtless Expression Without Intention To Produce The Result
Is Not An Inducement To Commit A Crime
A chance word spoken without reflection/ a wrong
appreciation of a situation/ an ironical phrase/ a thoughtless
act may give birth to a thought or resolution to commit a crime
in the mind of one without the one who spoke the word or
performed the act having any expectation that his suggestion
VIII. SECOND ELEMENT: That Such Inducement Be The Determining
Cause Of The Commission Of The Crime By The Material Executor
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the
act would not have been performed.
o It is necessary that the inducement be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the principal
by direct participation that, without such inducement
the crime would not have been committed (Decision of
SC of Spain).
o Inducement exists if the nature of the command or
advice is that without its concurrence the crime
would not have materialized (People v. Cruz).
Price given to the principal by direct participation after the
commission of the crime, without prior promise to give a price
or reward, could not be an inducement.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
150
C. One Who Planned The Crime Committed By Another Is A Principal
By Inducement
Persons who planned the crime committed by other persons
are guilty as authors by inducement.
If The Crime Committed Is Not Contemplated In The Order
Given, The Inducement Is Not Material And Not The
Determining Cause Thereof. People v. Lawas
o Facts: Accused Lawas was head of the home guards in a
barrio in Lanao and he orderd his men to shoot at
Moros suspected of having killed 11 Christian residents.
Some of the home guards fired at women and children
at the second floor of the house.
o Held: Lawas is not guilty of murder for the killing of the
women and children as principal by induction because
his order was to fire at Moros on the ground and
clearly did not intend for women and children to be
fired at.
IX. Principal By Induction In Falsification
People v. Po Giok To The employee did the overt act of
entering false facts on the residence certificate of the accused
because the accused induced him to do so by supplying him
those facts. Held: Accused was a principal by inducement. The
employee was a mere innocent agent of performing the act
constituting the crime hence employee was not criminally liable
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
151
XII. Possessor Of Recently Stolen Property Is A Principal
Possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal,
not an accessory or accomplice, unless he proves otherwise
satisfactorily and that another person who gave him the article
was the one who stole it (Section 5(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court)
PAR. 3: THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. (Principals By Indispensible Cooperation)
I. Meaning Of The Term Cooperate
To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. The
common will or purpose does not necessarily mean pervious
understanding because it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case (People v. Apelgido).
II. Elements To Be Liable As Principal By Indispensable Cooperation:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
152
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
153
B. Liability Of Conspirators Who Took Turns In Raping A Girl.
People v. Villa Four persons took turns in raping a girl; others
held her while one had intercourse with her.
Held: Each of them is responsible for his own act of rape and
also for the acts of the others. Four sentences were imposed on
each accused.
V. A Principal By Indispensable Cooperation May Commit A Crime
Different From A Principal By Direct Participation
Example:
OTHER MATTERS
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of the
three concepts defined in Article 17.
A person who assists one who commits the crime of arson and
who knows the latters purpose (but whose participation in the
arson is not known) may not be considered as a principal
because his acts were neither direct nor absolutely necessary
for the commission of the offense nor did it induce the said
commission (SC of Spain decision)
Collective criminal responsibility.
Present when offenders are criminally liable in the same
manner and to same extent; penalty imposed must be same for
all.
Who has collective criminal responsibility?
o Principals by direct participation.
o Principal by induction with the principal by direct
participation (EXCEPT the principal by induction who
directly forced another to commit a crime).
o Principal by indispensible cooperation with the
principal by direct participation.
Individual Criminal responsibility.
If there is no previous conspiracy/ unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before commission of crime/ community
of criminal design = criminal responsibility arising from different
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
154
II. The Participation Of An Accomplice Presupposes The Commission
Of The Crime By The Principal By Direct Participation
Principal element of complicity: concurrence of will of
accomplice with the will of the author of the crime (principal).
o He is not a principal (so he must not be part of the
conspiracy), but he supplies material or moral aid to
the principal in an efficacious way.
The accomplice cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts in
the execution of the offense by the principal.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
155
III. Not being included in Article 17.
An accomplice does not fall under any of the three concepts
defined in Article 17.
Those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts cannot
be held liable as principals but as accomplices.
A. In Case Of Doubt As To Whether Principal Or Accomplice
In case of DOUBT participation of offender is considered as
accomplice rather than principal.
o Quantum of proof lacking = milder form of criminal
liability: as accomplice.
o People v. Celemente eyewitness unable to assert if
appellants hit the fallen man (uncertain participation in
homicide) and there was no conspiracy shown. Held:
appellants declared accomplices only.
Mere presence at scene, knowledge of plan, and acquiescence
is insufficient ground to hold a person as conspirator therefore
will be held liable only as accomplice.
B. When The Participation Of An Accused Is Not Disclosed, He Is Only
As Accomplice
In criminal cases, the participation of accused must be proved
by positive and competent evidence (beyond reasonable
doubt) BY the prosecution. It can't be presumed.
People v. Ubina: If a person assists in arson because he knows
the purpose of the principal, but his participation is
undisclosed. Held: His actions are neither direct nor absolutely
necessary for the commission of the offense nor induce the
crime.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
156
Community of Design
A. Community of design.
The accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or take part in
the execution of the crime Carino v. People
o Facts: Appellant was the close friend of Dr. Lava (the
accused in crime of rebellion). Lava has been helping
appellants family in terms of health services and in
return when accused Dr. Lava asked for shelter and
food from appellant, he provided the same for Lava not
knowing that he was helping a rebel. Lava was part of
the Huks and appellant helped Lava open bank
accounts and assisted them with money matters.
Held: Appellant was not considered an accomplice to
rebellion because his acts of helping did not fall under
the definition of rebellion in RPC nor does he fall under
Art 18s definition of accomplice because his intent to
rebel against the government was not proven and his
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
157
B. How An Accomplice Acquires Knowledge Of The Criminal Design Of
The Principal.
1. Principal informs or tells the accomplice of the formers
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Sotto Master told his servant that he would
abduct the a girl under 18 years and he prompted said
servant to induce the girl to leave her home and the
servant did.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
158
C. Concurrence With The Criminal Purpose Of Another May Make One
A Co-Principal
Even if only one of the accused originated the criminal design
and the other merely concurred BUT BEFORE the actual
commission of the crime BOTH of them agreed and decided to
commit it, then the other will now be held a principal and not
an accomplice because he has become a co-conspirator.
o BASICALLY, you are an accomplice if the original person
will commit the crime with or without your help. You
are dispensable! Replaceable!
VII. SECOND ELEMENT: Cooperates In The Execution Of The Offense
The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct
participation BUT his cooperation is only necessary and not
indispensable.
However if there is conspiracy: the nature of the cooperation
becomes immaterial.
A. Examples Of Cooperation By Accomplice
1. By previous acts.
o Lending of a dagger or pistol to murderer knowing his
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Flores Pharmacist (knowing the criminal
purpose) furnishes the accused with the drug which he
used in order to help him rape the victim.
o When the owner of the gun knew that it would be
used to kill a particular person, and the principal used
it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not
an accomplice as to the killing of the victim.
People v. De la Cerna Serapio borrowed the
rifle of Sulpicio in order to kill Rafael (as per
their agreement) but then Serapio used it to kill
Casiano. There was no evidence that Sulipicio
was aware that Serapio would do so. Held:
Sulpicio acquitted for the killing of Casiano
2. By simultaneous acts.
o People v. Escarro No previous agreement or
understanding with co-defendant but defendant held
hand of victim and tried to take away his revolver while
co-defendant attacked victim.
o People v. Crisostomo No conspiracy among the 6
persons three detained offended woman were
principals in crime of illegal detention and three others
held victims companion to prevent latter from helping
victim were accomplices.
A. The Cooperation Of An Accomplice Is Not Due To A Conspiracy
People v. Francisco Facts: Francisco (then Mayor in Isabela)
was accompanied by Berganio, Badua, Dasalla, and Tagasa
when he brought Corpus from the municipal building to the
constabulary and wanted the Corporal to detain him there. But
Corporal refused because they didnt have a detention cell and
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
159
D. Wounds Inflicted By An Accomplice In Crimes Against Persons
Should Not Have Caused The Death Of The Victim
Accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound (or else
liable as principal).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
160
VIII. THIRD ELEMENT: Relation Between The Acts
A. An Accomplice May Be Liable For A Crime Different From That
Which The Principal Committed
People v. Babiera It was not shown that C and D knew of the
manner A attacked B but they knew that A had unlawfully
attacked B. Held: C and D were guilty as accomplices in crime of
homicide (A was guilty of murder qualified by treachery)
People v. Valdellon NARIC guard A asked C to help him (A)
get some sacks of rice from the NARIC warehouse then A sold
them to D. Held: C is only guilty as accomplice in commission of
simple theft. A guilty of qualified theft because of the qualifying
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence (this did not apply
to C because he wasnt affiliated with NARIC).
People v. Doble Appellants joined in plan to rob by providing
banca for the robbery but there was killing committed in the
course of the robbery by the principals (others). Held:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
161
B. Accomplice v. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
Accomplice
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
Participation of offender in a Case of a co-principal by cooperation
case of complicity indispensible.
necessary only.
Examples: One lends dagger or pistol knowing borrower is
going to commit murder cooperation with a previous act but
not indispensable cause offender could have borrowed or
gotten weapon from someone/somewhere else
People v. Templonuevo Accused (with knowledge of
intention of other accused to kill the deceased) struck deceased
on forehead with piece of wood facilitating subsequent slaying
of deceased because it made him unconscious. Held: Accused is
guilty as accomplice
People v. Geronimo Romeo held the victim while the others
boloed him (without conspiracy among them) Held: Romeo is
only an accomplice because others could have hacked
deceased even without him holding
C. Accomplice v. Principal By Direct Participation
Accomplice
Principal By Direct Participation
Person entertained owner of a If the person was in the same
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
162
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
163
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
164
B. Assisting The Offender To Profit By The Effects Of The Crime
Examples:
o A person knowing the item was stolen, sells it for the
thief (U.S. v. Galanco).
o Those who acted as runner or couriers in kidnapping
for ransom (People v. Magsino).
An accessory should not be in conspiracy with the principal
(otherwise he would also be punished as principal).
o U.S. v. Tan Tiap Co
o Facts: A conspired with others to steal goods, and
agreed to pay upon delivery of goods.
o Held: A is guilty of the crime of theft as principal, not
just accessory.
PAR. 2: BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
I. Note:
The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be
any crime, but it must not be a light felony.
II. Important Words And Phrases
A. Body Of The Crime
Corpus Delicti the body/substance of the offense or crime.
o This is proof that a specific offense was in fact
committed by someone.
o Made up of 2 things: (1) Existence of a certain act or
result forming the basis of the criminal charge (criminal
event), and (2) Existence of a criminal agency as the
cause of this actor result (criminal responsibility).
There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime.
o People v. De la Cruz Facts: Accused was ordered to
board the jeep not knowing or even suspecting the
reason for it. He did not take part in the killing, nor
profit, nor try to help conceal it as the bodies were
merely thrown in the ditch. Held: Accused must be
acquitted.
Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the
crime to prevent its discovery.
o Accused is an accessory has he helped hide the weapon
used to kill. The pistol or knife is the instrument of the
crime.
Examples:
o Assisting in the burial of the victim (U.S. v. Leal).
o Making it appear that the victim had to be killed
because he resisted by placing a gun in his hand when
already dead (U.S. v. Cuison).
o The mere act of carrying the cadaver of one unlawfully
killed when it was buried to prevent the discovery of
the crime, is sufficient to make him responsible as an
accessory (People v. Galleto)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
165
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
166
Principal
Accomplice
Takes direct part or cooperate or
induce in the commission of the
crime
Cooperates in the commission of
the offense prior, during or after.
Accessory
Does not take direct part or
cooperate in or induce the
commission of the crime
Does not cooperate in the
commission of the offense by
acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.
Participation takes place prior, Participation always takes place
during and after
AFTER the commission of the
crime.
Knows the criminal design of the Knows the commission of the
principal
offense
No exemption
Exempted under Article 20 and
for light felonies under Article 16
Provides direct or Provides
Acts in the 3 ways enumerated
indispensable
material
or under Article 19
participation, or moral aid in an
was liable for efficacious way
inducement.
but not in a
manner
indispensable
to the offense
Full penalty
1 degree lower 2 degrees lower than principal
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article.
POINTS
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
167
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
168