Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law I > Article 18 > Flashcards

Article 18 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Article 18 of the RPC (Accomplices) talks about what kind of criminal responsibility?

A

Quasi-collective criminal responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define quasi-collective responsibility

A

It is criminal responsibility between collective and individual criminal responsibility wherein some of the offenders in the crime are principals and others are accomplices

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

The principal element of every punishable complicity

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

The participation of an accomplice presupposes what?

A

The commission of the crime by the principal by direct participation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define accomplices

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Presumption when there is doubt as to whether accused acted as principal or as accomplice

A

Accused should be held liable only as accomplice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When the participation of an accused, is he an accomplice or principal?

A

An accomplice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

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?

A

Accomplice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Can participation of the accused be presumed?

A

No, it must be established by the prosecution by positive and competent evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Does the accomplice enter into a conspiracy with the principal by direct participation?

A

No, but he pe participates to a certain point in the common criminal design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the penalty of an accomplice?

A

One degree lower than that provided for the principal in a consummated felony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Distinctions between accomplice and conspirator (4)

A
  1. They both know and agree with the criminal design
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Conspirators are the authors of a crime, accomplices are merely instruments who perform aacts not essential to the perpetration of the offense
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

May a co-conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only?

A

No, the act of one is the act of all for conspirators

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Distinguish community of design from participation in the criminal resolution (2)

A
  1. Community of design does not necessarily mean there is conspiracy, although it may develop into one, while participation in the criminal resolution implies conspiracy
  2. 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

When is there participation in the criminal resolution?

A

When a malefactor enters with the others into an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When is there community of design?

A

When there was no agreement and decision between the malefactor and the others, but there is knowledge of the criminal design of theo thers, the malefactor merely concurred in their criminal purpose

17
Q

Requisites for one to become an accomplice (3)

A
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. That there be a RELATION between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice
18
Q

Before there can be an accomplice, there must be what?

A

A principal by direct participation

19
Q

Ways in how the accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of the principal (2)

A
  1. When the principal INFORMS OR TELLS the accomplice of the former’s criminal purpose
  2. When the accomplice SAW THE CRIMINAL ACTS of the principal
20
Q

Are the persons who assail a victim already wounded by another still regarded as principals?

A

No, they are only regarded as accomplice

21
Q

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?

A

The criminal intent/design entertained by the accused who inflicted MORE OR MOST SERIOUS WOUND on the victim

22
Q

If there was no knowledge of the criminal design of the principal, can one be considered an accomplice?

A

No

23
Q

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?

A

No

24
Q

Does the community of design need be to commit the crim actually commited? (i.e., the community of design for robbery cannot be considered for a crime of homicide)

A

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 probably 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

25
Q

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?

A

No

26
Q

For one to be an accomplice, should the cooperation by the accomplice be indispensible?

A

No, it is only necessary, not indispensible

27
Q

If there was conspiracy, and the cooperation of offender is only necessary, will that offender be only an accomplice?

A

No, that offender will also be a principal by conspiracy. The nature of the cooperation becomes immaterial

28
Q

Two ways of cooperation by accomplice (2)

A
  1. By previous acts
  2. By simultaneous acts
29
Q

What kind of wound differentiates an accomplice from a principal by direct participation?

A

An accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound, otherwise he becomes a principal by direct participation

30
Q

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)

A
  1. No, because A had no previous knowledge and could not have concurred in the criminal purpose of C
  2. Yes, A becomes an accomplice because it shows that A concurred in the criminal purpose of C
31
Q

Does being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person only an accomplice?

A

Yes, because of the concurrence of the criminal purpose

32
Q

How may an accomplice provide moral aid? (3)

A
  1. Advice
  2. Encouragement
  3. Agreement
33
Q

Does failure to give alarm upon seeing a crime make one an accomplice?

A

No, mere presence and silence, being a subsequent act, does not make one an accomplice

34
Q

When does aid and assistance by a person make one an accomplice?

A

When it is done either prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the crime, rendered KNOWINGLY for the principal

35
Q

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?

A

No, there must be a relation between the criminal act of the principal by direct participation and that of the accomplice

36
Q

May an accomplice be liable for a crime different from that which the principal commited?

A

Yes, because of the concurrence of the criminal purpose

37
Q

Distinguish accomplice from principal in general (1)

A

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

38
Q

Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation

A

For an accomplice, the cooperation is only necessary, not indispensible, while principal by cooperation, it is indispensible

39
Q

Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by direct participation (3)

A
  1. In both, there is community of criminal design
  2. As to the acts performed, there is not 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
  3. Between or among principals liable for the same offense, there must be conspiracy; but between the principals and the accomplices, there is no conspiracy

Criminal Law I (40 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions