PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
Securities Law
FELONIES
I. Grave and Less Grave Felonies
A. Principals
B. Accomplices
C. Accessories
II. Light Felonies
A. Principals
B. Accomplices
Rules Relative to Light Felonies
1. Light felonies are punishable only
when they have been consummated.
(Art. 7, RPC)
2. But whe 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, RPC)
3. Only principals and accomplices are
liable for light felonies. (Art. 16, RPC)
4. Accessories are not liable for light
felonies, even if they are committed
against persons or property. (Art. 16,
RPC)
Parties to a Crime
1. active subject (the criminal)
a. only natural persons because of
the highly personal nature (i.e.
malice or negligence) of the
criminal responsibility; he alone
by his act can set in motion a
cause or by his inaction can make
possible the completion of a
developing modification in the
external world (p. 505, Reyes,
2012)
b. penalties can be executed only
against individuals (Albert)
c. officers, not the corporation, are
criminally liable because the latter
can act only through the former
for being an artificial person
except under special laws
i. B.P. Blg. 68 (Corporation
Code of the Philippines)
ii. Com. Act No. 146 (Public
Service Law)
iii.
iv. Election Code
d. liable officers of the corporation
are those who participated
either as principals by direct
participation or principals by
induction or by cooperation, or
as accomplices in the
commission of an act punishable
by law (People v. Abdona A.
Montilla, C.A., 52 O.G. 4327)
e. manager of partnership is liable
even if there is no evidence of his
participation in the commission
of the offense because
corporation or partnership can
only act through its officers and
their agents, the president or
manager can be held criminally
liable for the violation of a law
by the entity (People v. Lao Chio,
C.A., 59 O.G. 4859)
2. passive subject (the injured party)
a. holder of the injured right
b. corpse of an animal cannot be a
passive subject
PRINCIPALS (Art. 17, RPC)
1. Principal by Direct Participation
2. Principal by Induction
3. Principal by Indispensable
Cooperation
A. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION
1. Participated in criminal resolution
2. Carried out the plan and personally
took part in the execution
Note: The cooperation which the law
punishes is the assistance which is
knowingly or intentionally given and
which is not possible without previous
knowledge of the criminal purpose.
(People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November
14, 1990)
When the second requisite is lacking,
there is only conspiracy.
1. Participation in the criminal
resolution
Conspiracy
When two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. (par. 2,
Art. 8, RPC)
There must be an overt act in furtherance
of the conspiracy, either by actively
participating in the actual commission of
the crime, or by lending moral assistance
to his co-conspirators by being present at
the scene of the crime, or by exerting
moral ascendancy over the rest of the
conspirators as to move them to
executing the conspiracy. (People v.
Cortez, G.R. No. L-31106, May 31, 1974)
It arises on the very instant the plotters
agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit
the felony and forthwith decide to pursue
it. (People v. Monroy, 104 Phil. 759) The
malefactors shall have acted in concert
pursuant to the same objective at the time
of the commission of the offense.
Conspiracy is implied when the accused
had a common purpose and were united
in its execution. (p. 521, Reyes, 2012)
Proof of Conspiracy
a. Interlocking extrajudicial confessions
of several accused
b. The testimony of one of the accused
who is discharged and made a witness
against his co-accused who did not
make any confession.
Note: Mere presence at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission is not
by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy.
(People v. Taaca, G.R. No. 35652,
September 29, 1989)
When there is no conspiracy, each of the
offenders is liable only for the act
performed by him. (p. 515, Reyes, 2012)
Unity of purpose and intention in the
commission of the crime
a. Spontaneous agreement at the
moment of the commission of the
crime (People v. Allado, 43 O.G. 1717)
b. Active cooperation by all the offenders
in the perpetration of the crime
c. Contributing by positive acts to the
realization of a common criminal
intent also creates joint responsibility.
d. Presence during the commission of the
crime by a band and lending moral
support thereto, also create joint
responbility with the material
executors.
Liability of participants where there is
conspiracy
General Rule: The act of one is the act of
all collective criminal responsibility. The
degree of actual participation by each of
the conspirators is immaterial.
Exceptions:
1. A crime which is not an object of the
conspiracy or which is not a necessary
and logical consequence thereof (p.
531, Reyes, 2012)
2. A person who had desisted before the
crime was committed by others (p.
532, Reyes, 2012)
Note:
1. Conspiracy may cover persons
previously undetermined.
2. When there is conspiracy, it is not
necessary to ascertain the specific act
of each conspirator.
3. The fact that an element of the offense
is not present as regards one of the
conspirators is immaterial.
4. In multiple rape, each rapist is equally
liable for the other rapes.
5. Participation in anothers criminal
resolution must either precede or be
coetaneous with the criminal act.
6. There could be no conspiracy to
commit an offense through negligence.
7. In cases of criminal negligence or
crimes punishable by special law,
allowing or failing to prevent an act to
be performed by another, makes one a
co-principal. (Reyes, 2012)
2. Principals by direct participation
Conspiracy
The culprits carried out their plan and
personally took part in its execution, by
acts which directly tended to the same
end. (p. 537, Reyes, 2012)
General Rule: They must be at the scene
of the crime, personally taking part in its
execution.
Exception: Where there is conspiracy to
kidnap and kill the victim and only one of
the conspirators kidnapped the victim
and, after turning him over to his co-
conspirators for execution, left the spot
where the victim was killed. By
kidnapping the victim, he already
performed his part and the killing was
done by his co-conspirators in pursuance
of the conspiracy. (People v. Santos, 84
Phil. 104)
The acts of each offender must directly
tend to the same end
One serving guard as guard pursuant to
the conspiracy is a principal by direct
participation. He is in fact, present, aiding,
and abetting in the commission of the
crime. (U.S. v. Reogilon, 22 Phil. 127)
B. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION
1. Intention of procuring the commission
of the crime
2. Determining cause of the commission
of the crime
Note:
1. The word inducement comprises, in
the opinion of Viada and the Supreme
Court of Spain, price, promise of
reward, command, and pacto. (People
v. Gensola, G.R. No. L24491, September
30, 1969)
2. The principal by induction becomes
liable only when the principal by direct
participation committed the act
induced.
3. To constitute inducement, there must
exist on the part of the inducer the
most positive resolution and the most
persistent effort to secure the
commission of the crime, together with
the presentation to the person induced
of the very strongest kind of
temptation to commit the crime. (U.S.
v. Idanan, 24 Phil. 203)
4. Ascendancy or influence as to amount
to moral coercion is not necessary
when there is conspiracy. (p. 548,
Reyes, 2012)
5. If the crime committed is not
contemplated in the order given, the
inducement is not material and not the
determining cause thereof. (p. 549,
Reyes, 2012)
Two ways of becoming principal by
induction
1. By directly forcing another to commit a
crime
2. By directly inducing another to commit
a crime
1. By directly forcing another to
commit a crime
a. By using irresistible force
b. By causing uncontrollable fear
Note:
1. There is no conspiracy, not even a
unity of criminal purpose and
intention. Only the one using force or
causing fear is criminally liable. The
material executor is not criminally
liable because of pars. 5 and 6 of Art.
12, RPC.
2. A thoughtless expression without
intention to produce the result is not
an inducement to commit a crime. (p.
542, Reyes, 2012)
3. The words of advice or the influence
must have actually moved the hands of
 the principal by direct participation. with the principal by direct
(p. 543, Reyes, 2012) participation.

b. By using words of command

2. By directly inducing another to
commit a crime
Without such inducement the crime
would not have been committed.
Inducement
If the command or advice is of such
nature that, without its concurrence, the
crime would not have materialized.
(People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November
14, 1990)
The inducement must precede the act
induced and must be so influential in
producing the criminal act that without it,
the act would not have been performed.
(p. 544, Reyes, 2012)
a. By giving a price, or offering reward
or promise
Requisites:
i. That the one uttering the words
of command must have the
intention of procuring the
commission of the crime.
ii. That the one who made the
command must have an
ascendancy or influence over the
person who acted.
iii. That the words used must be so
direct, so efficacious, so powerful
as to amount to physical or
moral coercion.
iv. The words of command must be
uttered prior to the commission
of the crime.
v. The material executor of the
crime has no personal reason to
commit the crime.

Note: Both the one giving the price Note: Both the person who used the
or offering reward or promise words of command and the person
(principal by inducement) and the who committed the crime, because
one committing the crime in of the words of command, are
consideration thereof (principal by equally liable. There is collective
direct participation are liable). criminal responsibility. (U.S. v.
There is collective criminal Gamao, 23 Phil. 81)
responsibility. (p. 541, Reyes, 2012)
Principal by Offender who
Collective Criminal Inducement Made Proposal to
Responsibility Commit a Felony
When the offenders are criminally Inducement to commit a crime is present.
liable in the same manner and to Liable only when Mere proposal to
the same extent. The penalty to be the crime is commit a felony is
imposed must be the same for all. committed by the punishable in
principal by direct treason or
Ex. Principals by direct participation. rebellion. The
participation; principal by person to whom
induction, except that who directly the proposal is
forced another to commit a crime, made should not
and principal by direct commit the crime.
participation; principal by Inducement Proposal to be
indispensable cooperation has involves any crime punishable must
collective criminal responsibility involve only
treason or
 Principal by Offender who
Inducement Made Proposal to Note: One who, by acts of negligence,
Commit a Felony cooperates in the commission of estafa
rebellion. through falsification or malversation
through falsification, without which
negligent acts the commission of the
Principal Co-Conspirator crime could not have been accomplished,
Criminal liability is Responsibility is a co-principal. But the one who
limited to his own includes the acts of cooperated in the commission of the
acts, as a general his fellow crime was held guilty of the same crime
rule. conspirators. through reckless imprudence. (Samson v.
Court of Appeals, 103 Phil. 277)
Effects of acquittal of principal by
direct participation upon the liability
of principal by inducement 2. Indispensable cooperation in the
1. Conspiracy is negatived crime/offense by another act
2. However, when the one charged as The cooperation must be indispensable,
principal by participation is acquitted that is, without which the commission of
because he acted without criminal the crime would not have been
intent or malice, his acquittal is not a accomplished.
ground for the acquittal of the
principal by inducement. (People v. Po Note:
Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 919) a. If not indispensable, the offender is
only an accomplice.
C. PRINCPAL BY INDISPESABLE b. The act of the principal by
COOPERATION indispensable cooperation should be
1. Participation in the criminal resolution different from the act of the principal
a. anterior conspiracy or unity of by direct participation.
criminal purpose and intention c. If the cooperation of one of the accused
b. immediately before the consists in performing an act
commission of the crime necessary in the execution of the crime
2. Indispensable cooperation in the committed, he is a principal by direct
crime/offense by another act participation.

Cooperate ACCOMPLICES (Art. 18, RPC)

To desire or wish in common a thing, will 1. Knowing and concurring with criminal
or purpose. It does not necessarily mean design
previous understanding, for it can be 2. Cooperates by previous or
explained or inferred from the simultaneous acts with intention of
circumstances of each case. (People v. supplying
Apelgido, 56 Phil. 571) a. material; or
b. moral aid (advice, encouragement
1. Participation in the criminal or agreement)
resolution 3. Relation between acts of the principal
There must be conspiracy but and accomplice
concurrence with the principal by direct
participation in the purpose of the latter Not being included in Article 17
is sufficient because the cooperation is When there is no conspiracy between or
indispensable to the accomplishment of among the defendants but they were
the commission of the offense. animated by one and the same purpose to
accomplish the criminal objective, those
who cooperated by previous or 1. Knowing and concurring with the
simultaneous acts but cannot be held criminal design
liable as principals are accomplices. (p. Note:
557, Reyes, 2012) a. There must be a principal by direct
participation.
Note: b. The cooperation which the law
1. Presupposes the commission of the punishes is the assistance which is
crime by the principal by direct knowingly or intentionally given and
participation. which is not possible without previous
2. In case of doubt as to whether knowledge of the criminal purpose.
principal or accomplice, the offender (pp. 560-561, Reyes, 2012)
will be considered as an accomplice
which will always be resolved in favor How an accomplice acquires
of the milder form of criminal liability. knowledge of the criminal design of
3. When the participation of an accused the principal
is not disclosed, he is only an a. When the principal informs or tells the
accomplice. In criminal cases, the accomplice of the formers criminal
participation of the accused must be purpose.
established by the prosecution by b. When the accomplice saw the criminal
positive and competent evidence. It acts of the principal.
cannot be presumed.
4. The accomplice gets a penalty one Note: Even if only one of the offenders
degree lower than that provided for originated the criminal design and the
the principal in a consummated other merely concurred with him in his
felony. criminal purpose, but before he actual
commission of the crime both of them
Accomplice Conspirator agreed and decided to commit it, the
Knows and agrees with the criminal other is not merely an accomplice. He is
design. also a principal, because having agreed
Knows the criminal Knows the criminal and decided to commit a felony with
intention after the intention because another, he becomes a co-conspirator. (p
principals have they themselves 563, Reyes, 2012)
reached the have decided upon
decision, and only such course of Community of Design
then do they agree action The community of design need not be to
to cooperate in its commit the crime actually committed. It is
execution. sufficient if there was a common purpose
Merely concurs that Decides that a to commit a particular crime and that the
a crime should be crime should be crime actually committed was a natural or
committed. They committed probable consequence of the intended
merely assent to crime.
the plan and
cooperate in its
accomplishment. 2. Cooperates by previous or
Merely instruments Authors of a crime simultaneous acts with intention of
who perform acts supplying material or moral aid
not essential to the
perpetration of the General Rule: The cooperation is only
offense. necessary, not indispensable.
Exception: If there is conspiracy between
two or among several persons, even if the
cooperation of one offender is only
necessary, the latter is also a principal by
conspiracy. The nature of the cooperation
becomes immaterial.
Note:
a. The one who had the original criminal
design is the person who committed
the resulting crime.
b. The accomplice, after concurring in the
criminal purpose of the principal,
cooperates by previous or
simultaneous acts.
c. The accomplice in crimes against
persons does not inflict the more or
most serious wounds.
Example:
A gave a fist blow on the face of B.
Seeing what A had done to B, C stabbed
B to death. Is A an accomplice?
No. The one who had the original
criminal design was C, the wound
inflicted by C being the more serious. A
could not have concurred in the
criminal purpose of C, because A was
the first to strike B and A did nothing
more after C had stabbed B.
The criminal responbility of A and C
will be individual, that is, each is
responsible for the act actually
performed by him.
But if C stabbed B first, and as B was in
a dying condition, A gave a fist blow on
Bs face, then A is an accomplice. (p.
573, Reyes, 2012)
d. Being present and giving moral
support when a crime is being
committed will make a person
responsible only as accomplice in the
crime committed provided there is
knowledge of the criminal purpose of
the principal.
Moral Aid
Through advice, encouragement or
agreement as specifically shown by the
evidence of the prosecution.
General Rule: The responsibility of the
accomplice is to be determined by acts of
aid and assistance, either prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the
crime, rendered knowingly for the
principal therein.
Exception: The object of such presence
was to encourage the principal or to
apparently or really increase the odds
against the victim.
Note: But the advice, encouragement or
agreement should not be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by
the principal by direct participation
otherwise, he would be a principal by
inducement.
3. Relation between acts of the
principal and accomplice
Note:
a. An accomplice may be liable for a
crime different from that which the
principal committed.
b. An accomplice does not take a direct
part in the commission of the act, who
does not force or induce others to
commit it, or who does not cooperate
in the commission of the crime by
another act without which it would not
have been accomplished, yet
cooperates in the execution of the act
by previous or simultaneous actions.
(People v. Silvestre, 56 Phil. 353, 356)
Accomplice Principal by
Direct
Participation
Community of criminal design
As to acts performed, no clear-cut
 Accomplice Principal by
Direct
Participation
distinction. In case of doubt, it shall be
resolved in favor of lesser responsibility,
that is, that of mere accomplice. (p. 579,
Reyes, 2012)
Between the Among principals
accomplice and the liable for the same
principal, there is offense, there must
no conspiracy. be conspiracy.