Alternative Circumstances – Those which must be taken into consideration

as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. (Art.15)

Basis
The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.

The Alternative Circumstances Are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the –
1. Spouse,
2. Ascendant,
3. Descendant,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Other Relatives Included (By Analogy):

1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.

REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow upon their stepchildren a

mother’s/father’s affection, care and protection.

2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child.

NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationship
mentioned.

When Relationship Mitigating And When Aggravating:

1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to the
provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art.
312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326).

2. In crimes against persons –

a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of
(1). a higher degree than the offender, or
(2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level (e.g. brothers)

b) But when it comes to physical injuries:

(1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious physical injuries (Art.263), even if the
offended
party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted
by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.
(2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree.
(3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.

c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the
crime is a relative of a lower degree.

d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his stepdaughter or in a

case where a father raped his own daughter.

3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship is always
aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of
the offended party. When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the relationship
between the offender and the offended party, it is neither mitigating nor aggravating,
because it is inseparable from and inherent in the offense. (e.g. parricide, adultery
and concubinage).

Intoxication - When Intoxication Mitigating And When Aggravating:

1. Mitigating –
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
2. Aggravating –
a. If intoxication is habitual, or
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).

To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of Intoxication, It Must Be Shown:

1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the accused has taken such
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control, and
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is

established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed
to be non-habitual or unintentional.

2000 Bar Exam Question (Non-Intoxication)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-
pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started
their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started
throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted.A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to
calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so
that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his
firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came
out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.

a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.

b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of
your clients? Explain.

a. Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and and a grave felony.(Art.48 RPC)

b. If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:

1. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they
merely intended to frighten Jepoy.

2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power
or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is
a mitigating circumstance (People vs. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art.15, RPC).

2002 Bar Examination Question (Alternative Circumstances;Intoxication)

A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had
a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical
injuries.

May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating?

The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is
no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of
A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

Instruction or Education
As an alternative circumstance it does not refer only to literacy but more to the level of
intelligence of the accused.
Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one’s acts.

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree of
instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender took advantage of his learning
in committing the crime.

GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient education is mitigating

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.

Who Are Criminally Liable

On Criminal Law

ART.16

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person
participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into
their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised
Penal Code classifies them as:

PRINCIPAL;
ACCOMPLICE; OR
ACCESSORY.

This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code

and is not applied under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.

Do not use the term “principal” when the crime committed is a

violation of special law (use the term “offender/s, culprit/s,
accused”).

As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave

or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are
criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and
the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.
 Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons
or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal
or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.

Note that accessories are not liable for light felonies.

REASON: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong

as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
sanction is unnecessary.

The classification of the offenders as principal, accomplice

or an accessory is essential under the RPC. The classification
maybe applied to special laws only if the latter provides for
the same graduated penalties as those provided under the RPC.

There Are Two Parties In All Crimes:

1. Active subject (the criminal)

Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of the crime.

2. Passive subject (the injured party) Is the holder of the

injured right: the man, the juristic person, the group, and
the State.

Note: Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime

because of the highly personal nature of the criminal
responsibility.

However, corporation and partnership can be a passive subject of

a crime.

GENERALLY: Corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects

because they have no rights that may be injured.

EXCEPTION: Under Art. 253, the crime of defamation may be

committed if the imputation tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.

This article applies only when the offenders are to be judged

by their individual, and not collective, liability.

Principal By Direct Participation

On Criminal Law
Principal By Direct Participation

ART.17.PRINCIPALS

THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:

1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION (par.1)
2. Principal by INDUCTION (par.2)
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (par.3)

Par. 1 – Principals by direct participation

Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and (conspiracy
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.

NOTE: If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of
the acts of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, coup d’ etat or rebellion

MEANING OF “personally took part in its execution”

- That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission of the
crime, personally taking part in its execution.

- Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is equally
liable as a principal by direct participation.

Ex: One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation

CONSPIRACY – there is unity of purpose and intention.

How conspiracy is established:

- It is proven by overt act beyond reasonable doubt.
- Mere knowledge or approval is insufficient
- It is not necessary that there be formal agreement
- Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in
execution.
- Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown in the
following cases:
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
3. Contribution by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
thereto.

While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of the
crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.

NOTES:
Conspirator is not liable for the crimes of the others which are not the object of the
conspiracy nor are logical or necessary consequences thereof

Regarding multiple rape – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because each cooperated
in the commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others

EXCEPTION: in the crime of murder w/ treachery – all the offenders must at least know that
there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate therein.

No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence. However, special

laws may make one a co-principal.

Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.

Those who are liable:

1. Materially execute the crime
2. Appear at the scene of the crime
3. Perform acts necessary in the commission of the offense

Why one who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable:
1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged;
2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty
therefor.
3. There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.

Principal By Induction
On Criminal Law

Principal by induction/Inducement

Art.17 Par 2. Principal By Induction

Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of
the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor.

One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime without first
being shown that the crime was actually committed (or attempted) by another.

Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) unless

there is a principal by direct participation. But there can be a principal by direct participation
without a
principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).
Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :
a) Using irresistible force.
b) Causing uncontrollable fear.

In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and intention.
Only the one using the force or causing the fear is criminally liable. The material executor is
not criminally liable because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting circumstances)

2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by –

a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise.

The one giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a principal by inducement while
the one
committing the crime in consideration thereof is a principal by direct participation. There is
collective criminal responsibility.

b) Using words of command The person who used the words of command is a principal by
inducement while the person who committed the crime because of the words of command is
a principal by direct participation. There is also collective criminal responsibility.

Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:

1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason

NOTE: Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be
obeyed do not make one an inductor

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. Mere imprudent advice
is not inducement.

If the person who actually committed the crime had reason of his own to commit the crime,
it cannot be said that the inducement was influential in producing the criminal act.

Effects Of Acquittal Of Principal By Direct Participation Upon Liability Of Principal By

Inducement:
1. Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co- defendant.
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first
being shown that the crime has been actually committed by another.

But if the one charged as principal by direct participation is acquitted because he acted
without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is not a ground for the acquittal of the principal
by inducement.

REASON FOR THE RULE: In exempting circumstances, such as when the act is not
voluntary because of lack of intent on the part of the accused, there is a crime committed,
only that the accused is not a criminal.

Examples:

While in the course of a quarrel, a person shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed the other
person. Is the person who shouted criminally liable? Is that inducement?
- No. The shouting must be an irresistible force for the one shouting to be liable.

There was a quarrel between two families. One of the sons of family A came out with a
shotgun. His mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed someone. Is the mother
liable?
- No.

People v. Balderrama 226 SCRA 537 (1993),

Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo na!” Oscar
stabbed the victim. It was held that there was no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous action
per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. Oscar has no rancor
with the victim for him to kill the latter. Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being much older (35 years old), than the latter, who
was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance, clothing, as well as food
and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.

People v. Agapinay, 188 SCRA 812 (1990),

The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him.” while the felonious aggression was taking
place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. Utterance was said in the
excitement of the hour, not a command to be obeyed.

People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),

The son was mauled. The family was not in good terms with their neighbors. The father
challenged everybody and when the neighbors approached, he went home to get a rifle.
The shouts of his wife “here comes another, shoot him” cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the
words had great influence over the
husband. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the
killing. She assisted her husband in taking good aim, but such assistance merely facilitated
the felonious act of shooting. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could
have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help, and considering further that doubts
must be resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of the wife is only that of an
accomplice.

2002 Bar Exam Question

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 promised 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?

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. 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. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A,
had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.

1994 Bar Exam Question

Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted
to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured
the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary
consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and
Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is their respective criminal
liability?

Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a
price or monetary consideration, to commit arson which the latter would not have committed
were it not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation .

Principal By Indispensable
Cooperation
On Criminal Law

Principal By Indispensable Cooperation

Art.17 Par. 3 – Principal by indispensable cooperation

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity
of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged;
and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it
would not have been accomplished.

MEANING OF “cooperation in the commission of the offense”

- To desire or wish in common a thing. But that common will or purpose does not
necessarily mean previous understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case.

NOTE: If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice.

Collective Criminal Responsibility:

- This is present when the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the
same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.

Principals by direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by

induction, (except those who directly forced another to commit a crime) and principals by
direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by indispensable
cooperation have collective criminal responsibilities with the principals by direct
participation.

Individual Criminal Responsibility:

- In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime, or community of criminal design, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person
is considered as individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for
the act committed by him.

QUASI-COLLECTIVE criminal responsibility: Some of the offenders in the crime are

principals and the others are accomplices.

What is the essence of being a principal by indispensable cooperation:

- The focus is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing
the crime.
- The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.
- If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation, then such cooperation
would bring about a principal.
- If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, this would
make the cooperator merely an accomplice.

In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.

2000 Bar Exam Question

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-
pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started
their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started
throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to
calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so
that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his
firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy
came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously, If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain.
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by
Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be
held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas'
criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that
criminal design by providing the firearm.

Accomplices
On Criminal Law

Accomplice

ART.18

ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous and simultaneous acts, which are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. They
act as mere instruments that perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.

Requisites: (the following must concur)

1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter 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; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as an accomplice.

NOTES:

Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.

The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound. If he
inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation.

In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of an accomplice
rather than that of a principal.

When is one regarded as an accomplice:

Determine if there is a conspiracy.

- If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of
one is the act of all.

Exception:
- If the participation of one is so insignificant
- such that even without his cooperation,
- the crime would be committed just as well,
 - then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.

What are the other traits of an accomplice

- does not have a previous agreement or understanding; or
- is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation

In Principal by Cooperation - Cooperation is indispensable in the commission of the act.

Accomplice - Cooperation is not indispensable in the commission of the act.

Accomplice from Conspirator

Accessories
On Criminal Law

Who are Accessories ?

ART.19

Accessories are those who:

1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery.

In profiting by the effects of the crime, the accessory must receive the property from the
principal. He should not take it without the consent of the principal. If he took it without the
consent of the principal, he is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.

EXAMPLE:
PAR. 1 - person received and used property from another, knowing it was stolen
Read: Illustrative case, 1998 Bar Exam Question
PAR. 2 - placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfully killed to plant
evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed by the principals
PAR. 3 -
a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime
(not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime –
guilty of
treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to
be habitually guilty of some crime.

GENERAL RULE: If the Principal is acquitted the Accessory is also acquitted. The
responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to that of the principal in a crime.

Exception: When the crime was in fact committed by the principal, but the principal is
covered by exempting circumstances (Art 12) and as a result he is not held liable. However,
it is possible that the accessory may still be held liable even if the principal was acquitted by
an exempting circumstance.

Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against
the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other.

Two classes of accessories contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19

1. PUBLIC officers, who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime
(not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.

Requisites:
1. The accessory is a public officer.
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal.
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.

2. PRIVATE persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime
who is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or attempts against the life of the President, or
who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Requisites:
1. The accessory is a private person.
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime.
3. The crime committed by the principal is either:
a. Treason,
b. Parricide,
c. Murder,
d. An attempt against the life of the President, or
e. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law requires that the principal be convicted before one
may be punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus delicti is proved and the
accessory’s participation as such is shown, he can be held criminally responsible and
meted out the corresponding penalty (Inovero vs. Coronel, CA, 65 O.G.3160).

The prescribed acts of the accessory under par.2 must have been intended to prevent the
discovery of the crime, hence, mere silence does not make one an accessory. If, however,
the crime involved is a conspiracy to commit treason, his silence may hold him liable for
misprision of treason (Art. 116) but as a principal thereof.

Where the accused misleads the authorities by giving them false information, such act is
equivalent to concealment and he should be held as an accessory.

Principal Distinguished from Accessory

1. Principal - Takes direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of the crime.

Accessory - Does NOT take direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of the
crime.

2. Principal - cooperates in the commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.

Accessory - does not take part in the commission of the offense.

3. Principal - Participates during commission of the crime.

Accessory - Participation of the accessory in all cases always SUBSEQUENT to the

commission of the crime.

2004 Bar Exam Question (Criminal Liability;Non-Exemption as Accessory)

DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings
with TBI pawnshop as a pledge for Php500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense
that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.

Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly.

No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an
accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the
crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is
expressly provided in Art.20 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accessories Who Are Exempt

From Criminal Liability
On Criminal Law

Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability

ART.20

BASIS:
The exemption provided for in this article is based on the ties of blood and the preservation
of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by
relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.

AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS

HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same degree.

Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The Principal Is Related To Him, If
Such Accessory –
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.

NOTES:

Nephew and Niece not included

Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by reason of relationship to the

principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of his official functions.
REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call of
duty.

P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases.

The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829. PD 1829 - The law
penalizing obstruction of justice.