ARTICLE 16-20
By: Atty. Aizza Marie F. Limosnero
ARTICLES 16-20 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Art. 16 (Who are Criminally Liable)
Art. 17 (Principals)
Art. 18 (Accomplices)
Art. 19 (Accessories)
Art. 20 (Accessories who are exempt from Criminal Liability)
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR GRAVE AND
LESS GRAVE FELONIES?
The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:
1) Principals
2) Accomplices
3) Accessories
(Art. 16 of the Revised Penal Code)
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR LIGHT
FELONIES?
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1) Principals
2) Accomplices
(Art. 16 of the Revised Penal Code)
WHAT ARE THE RULES
RELATIVE TO LIGHT
FELONIES?
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT
1. Light FELONIES
felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
(Art. 7)
2. But when light felonies are committed against persons or property, they are
punishable even if they are only in attempted or frustrated stage of
execution. (Art.7)
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies. (Art. 16)
4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies even if they are committed
against persons or property. (Art. 16)
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. Individual criminal responsibility - When there is no conspiracy, each of the
offenders is liable only for his personal act
2. Quasi-collective criminal responsibility – Some offenders in the crime are
principals and the others are accomplices
3. Collective criminal responsibility – Where there is conspiracy, the act of one
is the act of all. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
extent and character of their participation
WHO ARE PRINCIPALS
CONTEMPLATED UNDER
THE REVISED PENAL
CODE?
The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
(Art. 17 of the Revised Penal Code)
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
Kenny Jones, by promises of price and reward, induced Luciano to kill
Mathew Laurence, his classmate, who is living on an island far from
the mainland. Serg Jhun, the owner of the only motor boat in the place
and knowing the criminal designs of Kenny Jones and Luciano, offered
to transport and actually transported Luciano to the island. Once
there, Luciano killed Mathew Laurence.
(a) What is the criminal liability of Kenny Jones, Luciano and
Serg Jhun?
(b) What is the degree of participation of Kenny Jones,
Luciano and Serj Jhun in the crime committed by them?
TRUE OR FALSE?🤔
In the absence of concerted action pursuant to a common criminal
design, each of the accused, is responsible only for the
consequences of his act.
TRUE OR FALSE?🤔
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. There is
collective criminal responsibility.
TRUE. Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all
the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
extent and character of their participation because in
contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. The
degree of actual participation by each of the conspirators is
immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally responsible for
the acts of their co-conspirators.
(People v. Dela Cruz, GR. No. 83798)
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
Two or more personsPARTICIPATION
who took part in the commission of the crime
are principals by direct participation, when the following requisites
are present:
a) That they participated in the criminal resolution;
b) That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
TRUE OR FALSE?🤔
A conspirator is NOT liable for another’s crime which is not an
object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical
consequences thereof.
TRUE. And the rule has always been that co-conspirators are
liable only for the acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other
acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or
which are not necessary and logical consequence of the intended
crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF
PEOPLE v. DE LA CERNA, GR NO.
L-20911, OCTOBER 30, 1967?
TRUE OR FALSE? 🤔
A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the
crime was committed by the others, is still criminally liable.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
CASE OF PEOPLE V.
TIMBOL, GR. Nos. L-47471-
47473, AUGUST 4, 1944?
TRUE OR FALSE?🤔
The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the
crime, personally taking part in its execution.
TRUE. The principal by direct participation must be at the scene of
the commission of the crime, personally taking part in its execution.
However, if there is conspiracy, although he was not present in the
scene of the crime, he is equally liable as a principal by direct
participation.
NOTE:
- A conspirator who does not appear at the scene of the crime is NOT liable. His
non-appearance is deemed a desistance on his part unless he is the mastermind.
TRUE. The general rule is that a principal by direct
participation must personally take part in executing the
criminal plan to be carried out. This means that he must be at
the scene of the commission of the crime, personally taking part
in its execution.
WHO IS PRINCIPAL BY
INDUCEMENT?
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Principal by inducement are those who directly force or induce another to
commit a crime.
To be a principal by inducement, it is necessary that the inducement be the
determining cause of the commission of the crime by the principal by direct
participation that is, without such, the crime would not have been committed.
REQUISITES: PRINCIPAL BY
1) That the INDUCEMENT
inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime;
2) That the inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by
the material executor.
Note:
- It is necessary that the inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by
the principal by direct participation, that is, without such inducement the crime would not have been
committed.
- Thus, if the principal by direct participation had personal reason to commit the crime so that he
would commit it just the same even if no inducement was made by another, this second requisite does
not exist.
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
A induced B to kill X by giving him Php 500,000. For his part,
B induced C to kill for Php 300,000. C induced D to kill X for
Php 200,000. D killed X. Are A, B, and C principals by
inducement?
ANSWER:
A and B are not principals by inducement.
The law requires that to be principals by inducement, the
inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime.
Here, A and B are not principals by inducement because they did
not directly induce D to kill X. However, C is a principal by
inducement because he directly induced D to kill X.
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A
promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because
of the reward promise to him but because he also had his own long-
standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is
killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (2002
BAR EXAM)
ANSWER:
No, A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward
he promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C.
Under the Revised Penal Code, to bring about criminal liability of a co-
principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration
which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime
would not have been committed.
Here, B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C
out of a long standing grudge.
Thus, A would not be liable as a principal by inducement.
WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
There are two ways of becoming a principal by inducement:
(a) by directly forcing another to commit a crime;
(b) by directly inducing another to commit a crime
BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO
COMMIT A CRIME
There are two ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime.
They are:
(a) By using irresistible force;
(b) By causing uncontrollable fear.
NOTE:
- Only the one using force or causing fear is criminally liable. The material executor
is not criminally liable because of exempting circumstances of irresistible force and
uncontrollable under par. 5 & 6 of Art. 12.
BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER
TO COMMIT A CRIME
There are two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime.
They are:
a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise;
- Both the one giving the price or reward or promise and the one
committing the crime in consideration thereof are principals-the former by
inducement; and the latter by direct participation. There is collective criminal
responsibility.
b. By using words of command
- Both the person who used the words of command and the
person who committed the crime, because of the words of command, are equally
liable. There is also collective criminal responsibility.
TRUE OR FALSE?🤔
The principal by inducement becomes liable only when the
principal by direct participation committed the act induced.
