Skip to main content

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.

This also serves as an aggravating circumstance which will affect both the giver and the recipient.

B. By giving Words of Command.

1. The utterer must have an ascendancy or influence over the PDP, or is one entitled to obedience from the PDP

2. The words must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful and persistently made, as to amount to physical or moral force

3. Must be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and is therefore the determining cause and it thus precedes the crime

4. They do not include thoughtless or imprudent utterances. Mere advises, counsel or suggestions or exhortations.

C. By the use of Inciting Words. These are words uttered while a crime is going on by one who is present and are directed to a participant in the crime, such as the words “ sige pa, kick him,  kill him, bugbugin mo”. The following must however be considered

1. Whether the words were uttered by one with moral ascendancy over the accused and to whom obedience is due from the accused

2. Whether the utterances were the result of the excitement generated by the situation or that the utterer was caught up in his own excitement or emotion, or whether the uttrerer was coolly and deliberately uttering such words with the intention that they be acted upon

3. Whether the crime would be committed anyway even without the utterances, or if such utterances were the moving cause of the crime

D. By earnest and persistent solicitation or cajoling amounting to moral force by one with authority or influence over the accused

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