ART. 17. PRINCIPALS
I. There are three kinds of principals depending on the nature
of their participation in the commission of the crime. However, irrespective of
what type of principal they belong, their penalty will be the same. They are
the following:
A. Principal by Direct Participation
B. Principal by Indespensable Cooperation
C. Principal by Inducement
A. BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION (PDP)
A. This refers to those who actually and directly take part
in the execution of the act. In all crimes there must always be those who
actually perform the act which brings about the crime. They may be only one
person or more. Whenever there are two or more involved in a crime, it becomes
necessary to find out those who actually executed the act so that all may be
held equally liable.
B. To hold two or more persons as principals by direct
participation, it must be shown that there exists a conspiracy between and
among them. This is not the conspiracy punished as a crime but the conspiracy
as a mode or manner of incurring criminally or that legal relationship whereby,
in the eyes of the law, it may be said that the act of any one is the act of
all.
II. For conspiracy to exist,
there be an intentional felony, not a culpable felony, and it must be proved
that all those to be considered as PDPs performed the following:
A. ( Unity of Intention) They
participated, agreed, or concurred in the criminal design, intent or purposes
or resolution.
1. This participation may be
prior to the actual execution of the acts which produced the crime ( Anterior
Conspiracy ) or it may be at the very
moment the acts are actually being executed and carried out ( Instant
Conspiracy).
2. Hence it is not necessary to
prove that before the commission of the crime, the several accused actually
came and met together to plan or discuss the commission of the crime.
3. “Spontaneous agreement or
active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the
crime is sufficient to create a joint criminal responsibility” ( Sim Jr. vs.
CA, 428 SCRA 459)
B. (Unity of Action ). All participated in the execution or
carrying out of the common intent, design, purpose or objective by acts
intended to bring about the common objective.
1. Each must have performed an act, no matter how small or
insignificant so long as it was intended to contribute to the realization of
the crime conspired upon. This requires
that the principal by direct participation must be at the crime scene, except
in the following instances:
a). When he is the mastermind
b). When he orchestrates or directs the actions of the
others from some other place
c). His participation or contribution was already
accomplished prior to the actual carrying out of the crime conspired such: his
role was to conduct surveillance or to obtain data or information about the
place or the victims; to purchase the tools or weapons, or the get away
vehicle, or to find a safe house
d). His role/participation is to be executed simultaneously
but elsewhere, such as by crating a diversion or in setting up a blocking force
e). His role/participation is after the execution of the
main acts such as guarding the victim; looking for a buyer of the loot;
“laundering” the proceeds of the crime
III. Participation in both ( Intention and Action) is
necessary because:
A. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperate,
is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of
the criminal design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends companionship
B. He who commits the same or similar acts on the victim but
is a stranger to the conspiracy is separately liable. Simultaneous acts by
several persons do not automatically give rise to conspiracy.
C. Examples:
1. X joined in the planning of the crime but was unable to
join his companions on the day of the crime because he was hospitalized. He is
not liable.
2. X is the common enemy of A and B who are strangers to one
another. Both A and B chanced upon X. A
stabbed X while B shot him. A and B will have individual liabilities.
D. Exception: When a person joins a conspiracy after its
formation, he thereby adopts the previous acts of the conspirators which are
admissible against him. This is under the Principle of Conspiracy by Adoption.
IV. Proof of Conspiracy
A. Direct proof of conspiracy is not necessary. The
existence thereof maybe inferred under the Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy which
directs that if two or more persons:
(i). Aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object
(ii). Each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative
(iii). Indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment
(iv).A conspiracy maybe inferred though no actual meeting
among them to concert is proved.
V. Effect of Conspiracy. There will be a joint or common or
collective criminal liability, otherwise each will be liable only to the extent
of the act done by him.
VI. For what crime will the co-conspirators be liable?
A. For the crime actually committed if it was the crime
agreed upon
B. For any other crime even if not agreed upon, provided it
was the direct, natural, logical consequence of, or related to, or was
necessary to effect, the crime agreed upon. Otherwise only the person who
committed the different crime will be held liable.
VII. When is a co-conspirator freed from liability?
A. Only if he has performed an overt act either to:
1. Disassociate or detach himself from the plan
2. Prevent the commission of the second or different or
related crime
B. Likewise, if for any reason not attributable to the law
enforcement agents, he was not able to proceed to the crime scene and/or
execute an act to help realize the common objective, then he can not be held
liable as a co-conspirator. Thus he is not liable if he got sick, overslept, or
forgot about it, but not when law agents took him into custody to prevent him
from doing his part of the agreement.
Thus in Robbery with Homicide, all who conspired in the
robbery will be liable for the homicide unless one of the conspirators proved
he tried to prevent the homicide.
Comments
Post a Comment