Article 18 Flashcards
Article 18 of the RPC (Accomplices) talks about what kind of criminal responsibility?
Quasi-collective criminal responsibility
Define quasi-collective responsibility
It is criminal responsibility between collective and individual criminal responsibility wherein some of the offenders in the crime are principals and others are accomplices
The principal element of every punishable complicity
Concurrence of the will of the accomplice with the will of the author of the crime, and the accomplice cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts in the execution of the offense by the principal
The participation of an accomplice presupposes what?
The commission of the crime by the principal by direct participation
Define accomplices
Those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as principals when there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective
Presumption when there is doubt as to whether accused acted as principal or as accomplice
Accused should be held liable only as accomplice
When there is participation of an accused, is he an accomplice or principal?
An accomplice
A person who assists one who commites the crime of arson and who knows the latter’s purpose, but whose participation in the arson is not disclosed, is he a principal or accomplice?
Accomplice
Can participation of the accused be presumed?
No, it must be established by the prosecution by positive and competent evidence
Does the accomplice enter into a conspiracy with the principal by direct participation?
No, but he participates to a certain point in the common criminal design
What is the penalty of an accomplice?
One degree lower than that provided for the principal in a consummated felony
Distinctions between accomplice and conspirator (4)
- They both know and agree with the criminal design
- Conspirators know the criminal intention because they have decided upon it, while accomplices come to know it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution
- Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed, while accomplices merely concur in it, they do not decide, but they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment
- Conspirators are the authors of a crime, accomplices are merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense
May a co-conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only?
No, the act of one is the act of all for conspirators
Distinguish community of design from participation in the criminal resolution (2)
- Community of design does not necessarily mean there is conspiracy, although it may develop into one, while participation in the criminal resolution implies conspiracy
- When a malefactor enters with the others into an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it, there is participation in the criminal resolution, if there is no such agreement and decision but there is knowledge of the criminal design of the others, there is only community of design
When is there participation in the criminal resolution?
When a malefactor enters with the others into an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it
When is there community of design?
When there was no agreement and decision between the malefactor and the others, but there is knowledge of the criminal design of the others, and the malefactor merely concurred in their criminal purpose
Requisites for one to become an accomplice (3)
- That there be community of design; that is, KNOWING THE CRIMINAL DESIGN of the principal by direct participation, he CONCURS with the latter in his purpose
- That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by PREVIOUS or SIMULTANEOUS ACTS, with the intention of supplying MATERIAL or MORAL AID in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way
- That there be a RELATION between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice
Before there can be an accomplice, there must be what?
A principal by direct participation
Ways in how the accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of the principal (2)
- When the principal INFORMS OR TELLS the accomplice of the former’s criminal purpose
- When the accomplice SAW THE CRIMINAL ACTS of the principal
Are the persons who assail a victim already wounded by another still regarded as principals?
No, they are only regarded as accomplice
Which criminal design is to be considered in case there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between two or among several accused charged with a crime against persons?
The criminal intent/design entertained by the accused who inflicted MORE OR MOST SERIOUS WOUND on the victim
If there was no knowledge of the criminal design of the principal, can one be considered an accomplice?
No
Does simultaneousness itself demonstrate the concurrence of will and the unity of action and purpose which are the bases for one to become an accomplice or conspirator?
No
Does the community of design need be to commit the crime actually commited? (i.e., the community of design for robbery cannot be considered for a crime of homicide)
No, it is sufficient that there was a common purpose to commit a particular crime and that the crime actually committed was a natural or probable consequence of the intended crime
i.e., When the accomplices consented to aid in forcible abduction, they will be responsible as such accomplices for the resulting homicide, which may be a possible consequence of forcible abduction, even if it appears that the purpose to commit homicide on the part of the principal was unknown to the accomplices
When the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a particular person, and the principal used it to kill another person, is the owner of the gun an accomplice as to the killing of the other person?
No
For one to be an accomplice, should the cooperation by the accomplice be indispensible?
No, it is only necessary, not indispensible
If there was conspiracy, and the cooperation of offender is only necessary, will that offender be only an accomplice?
No, that offender will also be a principal by conspiracy. The nature of the cooperation becomes immaterial
Two ways of cooperation by accomplice (2)
- By previous acts
- By simultaneous acts
What kind of wound differentiates an accomplice from a principal by direct participation?
An accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound, otherwise he becomes a principal by direct participation
In a case where A gave a fist blow to the victim first and did nothing more then C stabbed the victim, is A an accomplice? What if C stabbed first then A gave fist blow afterwards? (2)
- No, because A had know previous knowledge and could not have concurred in the criminal purpose of C
- Yes, A becomes an accomplice because it shows that A concurred in the criminal purpose of C
Does being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person only an accomplice?
Yes, because of the concurrence of the criminal purpose
How may an accomplice provide moral aid? (3)
- Advice
- Encouragement
- Agreement
Does failure to give alarm upon seeing a crime make one an accomplice?
No, mere presence and silence, being a subsequent act, does not make one an accomplice
When does aid and assistance by a person make one an accomplice?
When it is done either prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the crime, rendered KNOWINGLY for the principal
Is it enough for one to become an accomplice when he entertains an identical criminal design as that of the principal despite having no relation?
No, there must be a relation between the criminal act of the principal by direct participation and that of the accomplice
May an accomplice be liable for a crime different from that which the principal commited?
Yes, because of the concurrence of the criminal purpose
Distinguish accomplice from principal in general (1)
An accomplice is one who does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, does not force or induce others, and does not indispensably cooperate, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by PREVIOUS or SIMULTANEOUS actions
Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation
For an accomplice, the cooperation is only necessary, not indispensible, while principal by cooperation, it is indispensible
Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by direct participation (3)
- In both, there is community of criminal design
- As to the acts performed, there is no clear-cut distinction between the acts of the accomplice and those of the principal by direct participation, hence in case of doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of lesser responsibility, that is that of mere accomplice
- Between or among principals liable for the same offense, there must be conspiracy; but between the principals and the accomplices, there is no conspiracy
