Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and

examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. "In deductive inference, we
hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict
what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the
theory — to the specific — the observations,"

Inductive reasoning type of reasoning whereby the collected information is analyzed carefully to
develop a theory of the crime.

INTENT
Determination to do a certain thing, an aim
or purpose of the mind.
Establish the nature and extent of
culpability in intentional felonies.
MOTIVE
It is the moving power which impels one to
do an act.
Generally, it is not an essential element of
a crime, hence, it need not be proved for
purposes of conviction .

When Motive Becomes Material in Determining Criminal Liability

i. When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery)

ii. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.

iii. When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the
crime.

iv. When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the
testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt.

v. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons.

vi. When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial.
 Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the accused, especially where there
is doubt as to the identity of the accused

ILLUSTRATION
Ernie came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with Bert, former suitor.
Thereupon, he went to the kitchen, opened a drawer and pulled out a knife. He then
stabbed Bert.
The moving force is jealousy.
The intent is presumed from the resort to the knife, so that means he desires to kill Bert, the
former suitor.
COLD CASE - an unsolved criminal investigation; and is not subject of a recent criminal
investigation; which remains open pending the discovery of new evidence.

HOT CASE – A case wherein the violation of law or ordinances has just been discovered and
the suspect and witness are still emotionally affected, upset, or shocked.

THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:

1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION
2. Principal by INDUCTION
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and (conspiracy)
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts
which directly tended to the same end.

NOTE:
If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of
the acts of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, coup d’ etat or rebellion.

MEANING OF “personally took part in its execution”

ƒ That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the
commission of the crime, personally taking part in its execution.
ƒ Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he
is equally liable as a principal by direct participation.
Ex:
One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation

CONSPIRACY – there is unity of purpose and intention.

How conspiracy is established:

• It is proven by overt act and beyond reasonable doubt
• Mere knowledge or approval is insufficient
• It is not necessary that there be formal agreement
• Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were
united in execution.
• Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown
in the following cases:
 1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
3. Contribution by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal
intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending
moral support thereto.
• While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be
established by positive and conclusive evidence.

NOTES:
ƒ Conspirator is not liable for the crimes of the others which are not the object
of the conspiracy nor are logical or necessary consequences thereof
ƒ Regarding multiple rape – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because
each cooperated in the commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others

EXCEPTION: in the crime of murder w/ treachery – all the offenders must at

least know that there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate therein.
ƒ No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence.
However, special laws may make one a co-principal.
ƒ Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.

PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION
Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime by the material executor.

ƒ One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime
without first being shown that the crime was actually committed (or attempted) by
another.
ƒ Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable
cooperation) unless there is a principal by direct participation. But there can be a
principal by direct participation without a principal by inducement (or by
indispensable cooperation).
Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :
a) Using irresistible force.
b) Causing uncontrollable fear.
 ƒ In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal
purpose and intention. Only the one using the force or causing the fear
is criminally liable. The material executor is not criminally liable
because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting circumstances)

2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by –

a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise.
ƒ The one giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a principal
by inducement while the one committing the crime in consideration
thereof is a principal by direct participation. There is collective criminal
responsibility.

b) Using words of command

ƒ The person who used the words of command is a principal by
command is a principal by direct participation. There is also collective
criminal responsibility.

Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:

1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason

NOTE:
Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be
obeyed do not make one an inductor.
ƒ 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. Mere imprudent advice is not inducement.
ƒ If the person who actually committed the crime had reason of his own
to commit the crime, it cannot be said that the inducement was
influential in producing the criminal act.

PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act,
without which it would not have been accomplished
ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous acts, which are not
indispensable to the commission of the crime. They act as mere instruments that
perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense

Requisites: (the following must concur)

1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the
execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.

NOTES:
ƒ Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct
participation.
ƒ The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal
wound. If he inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation.
ƒ In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of an
accomplice rather than that of a principal.

ACCESSORIES are those who:

1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices, take
part subsequent to its commission in any of the following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery.

In profiting by the effects of the crime, the accessory must receive the property from
the principal. He should not take it without the consent of the principal. If he took it
without the consent of the principal, he is not an accessory but a principal in the
crime of theft.

EXAMPLE:
PAR. 1-
person received and used property from another, knowing it was stolen
PAR. 2-
placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfully killed to plant
evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed by the principals
PAR. 3-
a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the
principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public
functions
b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the
author of the crime – guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt
against the life of the President, or who is known to be habitually guilty
of some crime.