Skip to main content

Principles of Criminal Liability

 

Principles of Criminal Liability

A. To be guilty of a crime, one must commit the crime himself (principal) or if committed by another, he must, in some manner, participate either in its commission ( accomplice) or in the fruits  thereof ( accessory).

B. As a rule only natural persons who are alive can beheld criminally liable. The reasons are: (i) The element of mens rea can only be found in natural persons: malice in intentional felonies and indifference in culpable felonies are attributes of natural persons (ii)  juridical persons cannot be arrested (iii) the principal penalties  consisting of deprivation of life or of  liberty, restriction of liberty, deprivation of rights, and the accessory penalties of disqualification, cannot be served by juridical persons.

C. When may a juridical entity be held criminally liable? A juridical entity may be prosecuted and held liable if the offense is punishable by a fine.

D. For what acts may a juridical person be held liable?

1. For acts committed by its responsible officers, policy makers or those having charge of the management and operation of the entity.

2. A corporation also incurs criminal liability for the acts of its employees or agents if (i) the employee or agent committed the offense while acting within the scope of his employment and (ii) the offense was committed with at least an intent to benefit the employer ( PP. vs. Chowderry, 235 SCRA 572

E. Who are liable if the violation was made by a juridical entity? Per Ching vs. Secretary of Justice ( Feb. 06, 2006) the principles maybe summarized as follows

1. The juridical entity itself where the penalty is one which can properly be imposed on it, such as fine or revocation of license

2. The officers, employees or agents who actually executed the prohibited act or incurred the omission

Example: LLamado vs. CA ( 270 SCRA 423) it was held that even if the officer of the corporation had no involvement in the negotiation of the transaction for which he, as treasurer of the corporation, issued a postdated check which bounced, he is liable for Violation of B.P. 22

3. The person specifically mentioned by law violated to be held liable. Examples:

a). Section 8 of R.A. 8042  (Migrant and Overseas Filipino Act of  l995) provides: “In cases of juridical persons the offices having control, management, and direction of their business shall be held liable”

b). P.D. 1612 (Anti Gambling Law) provides that the President shall be liable if gambling is carried on by a juridical entity

c). In case of libel under Art. 360 the persons liable shall be the editor of a book or pamphlet, business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication 

4. a). An employee or officer even if not among those enumerated by the law violated, if, with knowledge of the illegal act/business, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct or promotion ( PP. vs. Chowderry)

b). The culpability of the employee hinges… on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation on its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer ( PP. vs. Corpuz, October 1, 2003)

5. Those who, by virtue of their managerial position or similar relations to the corporation  could be deemed responsible for its commission, if by virtue of their relations to the corporation, they had the power to prevent the act 

F. Where the act is a violation by a juridical entity, the officers or employee cannot put up the following defenses:

1. It is no defense that he did not benefit from the act

2. The accused cannot hide behind the principle of separate corporate personality of the juridical entity in order to escape liability

G. A person cannot escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime on the ground that he simply acted as an agent or representative of a party

H. Criminally liability is purely personal and is limited to the acts/omissions of an accused and not for the acts or omissions of third persons ( res inter alios acta rule) .Except when there exists a conspiracy between two or more persons where the act of one becomes the act of all resulting to a joint criminal responsibility or collective liability.

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