US VS GUEVARA

FACTS: The defendant here is a Corporal in the Constabulary who, according to a testimony, turned over
a suspect named Veronico De Leon to a soldier named Feliciano who caused the death of De Leon by
beating him with the butt of a gun.

ISSUE: WON the defendant is liable as principal by inducement of the crime committed in the case at
bar.

RULING: The court held NO, the defendant is not a principal because, here, the defendant stood by and
saw one of his men inflict upon the prisoner injuries which later on caused his death but failed to
disclose any inducement, command, advice, or suggestion on the part of the defendant which may be
inferred that he had direct participation in the commission of the offense. His mere presence while the
crime is being committed without any inducement, command, advice, or suggestion as regards to the
commission does not make one liable as principal by inducement.

US VS INDANAN

FACTS: The accused was at the time of the commission of the crime was a headman of Moros in Parang.
In this case, the accused ordered certain of his followers to seize and bring before him the victim. And
such order was obeyed. They bound the victim and detained until night. Thereafter, the accused
ordered his followers to take the victim to an old Chinese Cemetery and there kill him. He reinforced
that such execution was an order from the governor. Hence, his order was obeyed.

ISSUE: WON the accused is liable as principal by inducement in the case at bar.

RULING: The court held YES. In order that a person be convicted of a crime by inducement, it is
necessary that the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. And that
exactly what happened in this case.

US VS. MAHARAJA ALIM

FACTS: The defendant who had influence and exercised authority over his co-accused, induced them
through the means of pay and promise of reward to kill one Moro Tantung. That in view of said
inducement, the co-accused attacked and assaulted the victim with lance and bolos which later on
caused his death.

ISSUE: WON the defendant is liable as principal by inducement of the crime committed in the case at
bar.

RULING: The court held YES because the accused here in order for the crime to be committed, induced
his co-accused by means of pay and a promise of a reward which is an act that constitutes a completely
efficacious inducement.
PP VS CAIMBRE, ET.AL

FACTS: In this case, one of the accused, Demetrio Caimbre, slashed one Angel Olimpio with his bolo, and
when the victim ran to a nearby palay seed bed, he was pursued by Demetrio, and there was slashed
again several times. During the pursuit, one of the accused told Demetrio : YOU HAD BETTER KILLED
HIM, and when Vicente (Demetrio’s brother) noticed that the victim was still alive, he told his brother:
FINISH HIM, FINISH HIM, whereupon, Demetrio cut the victim’s neck.

ISSUE: WON the utterances of one of the accused made him a co-principal by inducement in committing
the crime in the case at bar.

HELD: The court held that NO because there is nothing to show that appellant had any reason at all to
have the victim killed. Obviously, the accused here needed no exhortation from appellant to persuade
him to kill the victim.

PP VS CANIAL, ET.AL

FACTS: There was a party attended by the accused, when this fellow Clarita of theirs had a conversation
with somebody, telling to the latter that one named Chit is jealous of her and saying bad words against
her. Few moments later, one of the accused, Janet had pointing to other accused the houses of the
victims to the other accused, and thereafter, gun fires that inflicted injuries upon the victims that caused
their deaths. Meanwhile, Janet told Edwards, one of the accused, IYAN PA ANG ISA DUMARATING, and
in response, aimed at the victim and shot him.

ISSUE: WON such utterance of one of the accused would constitute an inducement, making her therefor
a co-principal by inducement.

RULING: The court held that NO. Because the statement was said that the same could not have been
taken and obeyed by his co-accused as an order to shoot, but partook more of a warning of an
impending threat than an inducement to shoot.