Skip to main content

ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES

 

ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES

I. Concept: Those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts They are also referred to as the” Accessories Before the Fact”.

II. There is no conspiracy between the accomplice and the PDP but there is community of design between them i.e the accomplice knows and is aware of the intent, purpose or design of the PDP. He then concurs, or approves of the intent of the PDP by cooperating in the accomplishment of the purpose through an assistance given the PDP.

III. The cooperation of the accomplice is not indispensable in that the crime would still be accomplished even without his cooperation. His cooperation or assistance may facilitate or make easier the commission the crime but the crime would still be accomplished anyway. The acts of the accomplice must however be related to the acts of the PDP but they merely show that the accomplice agrees, approves or concurs with what the PDP intends to do or what he has done.

IV. The cooperation may be in the following forms:

A. Moral as in word of encouragement or advises

B. Through external acts which are either previous or simultaneous to the execution of the criminal acts, such as :

1. Giving of additional weapons or ammunition or a faster mode of transportation, or food to the accused

2. Blocking, or tripping a person who intends to assist the victim

3. Throwing stones, spitting, kicking, or delivering a blow, at the victim

4. Continuing to choke the victim after seeing that a deadly or fatal blow had been inflicted on the victim

Note: The act of the accomplice should not be more fatal or more deadly or mortal than that delivered by the PDP

Example: (PP. vs.  Cual, Mach 9, 2000). X and the victim Y were fighting and grappling for the possession of a steel pipe. B arrived and hacked at Y who ran away. X stood by while B pursued Y and killed him. Is X an accomplice?

V. Distinction between an Accomplice and a Principal By Indispensable Cooperation.

A. The acts of an accomplice are not indispensable to the consummation of the offense in that the crime would still be consumated even without his cooperation, whereas the cooperation of the PIC is one without which the offense would not have been accomplished

 

B. There is no conspiracy between the accomplice and the PDP but which exist between the PIC and the PDP

C. Example: PP. vs. Roland Garcia: Jan. 15, 2002

FACTS: In a case of kidnapping for ransom, the police arrested the accused who received the money from the wife of the victim. They learned the victim was kept in a house. The police proceeded to the house where they surprised X and Y who were seated and who tried to enter a room to get guns. The two were not among the four who actually kidnapped the victim. The victim was found in a room handcuffed and blindfolded.

QUESTION: What is the criminal liability of X and Y?

HELD: At the time X and Y were caught, the victim had already been rendered immobile, his eyes blindfolded and his hands handcuffed. He could not have gone elsewhere and escaped. It is clear X and Y were merely guarding the house for purpose of either helping the  other accused in facilitating the successful denoument of the crime or repelling any attempt to rescue the victim. They thus cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous and/or simultaneous acts by means of which they aided or facilitated the execution of the crime but without indispensable act for its accomplishment. They are merely accomplices.

A co-conspirator us distinguished from an accomplice, thus:

Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after   the principal reached the decision and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decided that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether te crime should be committed; they merely assent tot eh plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.

Further, the crime could have been accomplished even without the participation of X and Y. “ In some exceptional cases, having  community of design with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of he crime was…of minor character”.

NOTE: Had it been that the victim as not immobilized and could still escape, then X and Y would be considered as principals as they would still be considered as detaining and preventing the escape f the victim.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ART. 17. PRINCIPALS- Principal by Direct Participation- Revised Penal Code

  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 co...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digests- Statutory Construction

  Government of the Phil. Islands v. HSBC, G.R. No. 44257, 22 November 1938   Facts: The appellees are banks doing business in the Philippines. This has been brought about   by the appellant to determine the liability of the appellees under section 11 of Act No. 4007. All the appellees demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Deeming the statutory provision relied upon by the appellant was unconstitutional. The National City Bank of New York alleged further, in support of the demurrer filed by it, that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, and that section 11 of Act No. 4007 did not impose any tax upon national banking associations, in which class it belonged. The court below sustained the demurrers filed by the appellees, on the sole ground that the complaint did not allege a cause of action, because the statutory provision involved was unconstitutional. It questions now the constitut...
Post a Comment
Read more

Art. 17- PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT (PI)- Revised Penal Code

  B. PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT (PI)   I. Concept: Those who induce (PDP) to commit a crime either by: (a) force (b). inducement II. The use of force involves the application of either: A. Active force or material force upon the person of the PDP, resulting to serious bodily injury, to such a degree that the PDP is left with no choice but to do as ordered or B. Instilling fear of the commission or infliction of an equal or greater injury or evil either to the PDP or the latter’s family or even to a third person. The PDP may set up the use of force as an exempting circumstance. III. Inducement connotes that there was an agreement or conspiracy between the PI and the PDP. The inducement assumes several forms such as the following A. By the giving of a price, promise or reward. This must be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and not as an expression of appreciation. The same must be the sole reason for the commission of the crime. T...
Post a Comment
Read more