TITLE TWO: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FORFELONIES ART. 16 WHOARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR GRAVE AND LESS GRAVE FELONIES: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices 3. Accessories FORLIGTH FELONIES: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices Accessories are not liable for light felonies. REASON: in the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as well as the sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories. The classification of the offenders as principals, accomplices, or an accessory is essential under the RPC. The classification maybe applied to special laws only if the latter provides for the same graduated penalties as those provided under the RPC. TWO PARTIES IN ALL CRIMES: 1. ACTIVE SUBJECT (the criminal) Art. 16 enumerate the active subjects of the crime. 2. PASSIVE SUBJECT (the injured party) The holder of the injured right: the man, the juristic person, the group, and the State Only natural persons can be the active subject of the crime because of the highly personal nature of the criminal responsibility. However, corporation and partnership can be a passive subject of a crime. Corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects because they have no rights that maybe injured. EXCEPTION: under Art. 253, the crime of defamation may be committed if the imputation tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. This article applies only when the offenders are to be judge by their individual, and not collective, liability. ART. 17 PRINCIPALS THE FOLLOWING ARE PRINCIPALS: 1. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION – those who take a direct part in the execution of the act. 2. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION – those who directly force or induce others to commit it. 3. PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION – those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Par.1 – principals by direct participation REQUISITES: a) That they participated in the criminal resolution; and b) That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. When the second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy. In conspiracy by prior agreement, the principal by direct participation who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable because: 1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encourage; 2. Conspiracy is generally nota crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. (Art. 8) Thus, by merely conspiring the would be participator has not yet committed any crime unless he would appear the scene of the crime and perform any act directly or indirectly in accomplishment of the conspiracy; 3. There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation. MEANING OF “personally took part in its execution” That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission of the crime, personally taking part in its execution. Par. 2 – 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. 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. Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) unless there is a principal by direct participation without a principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation). TWO WAYS OF BECOMMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION: 1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by a – a) Using irresistible force. IRRESISTABLE FORCE – such physical force as would produce an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument. b) Causing uncontrollable fear. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – compulsion by means of intimidation or threat that promises an evil of such gravity and eminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.(U.S. vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil 209, 212, 213). 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. 5and 6 (exempting circumstances) 2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by – a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise. The one giving the price, or offering of 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 The person who used the words of command is a principal by inducement while the person who committed the crime because of the words of command is a principal by direct participation. There is also collective criminal responsibility. REQUISITES: 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; 3. That the words used must so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion; 4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime; 5. The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime. The inducement must precede the act induced and must be PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT OFFENDER WHO MADE PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY In both There is an inducement to commit a crime When liable Becomes liable only when the crime is committed by the principal by direct participation. The mere proposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason or rebellion. However, the person to whom the proposal is made should not commit the crime, otherwise, the proponent becomes a principal by inducement. What kind of crime involved Involves any crime The proposal to be punishable must involve only treason, rebellion or coup d’ etat. (TRIC) so influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would not have been performed. If the person who actually committed the crime had no reason of his own to commit the crime, it cannot be said that the inducement was influential in producing the criminal act.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:26:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015