Article 17

participating in the actual commission of the crime or

Principals

by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by

being present at the scene of the crime or by exerting

The following are considered principals:

1.

moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as

Those who take a direct part in the execution of the

-

to move them to executing the conspiracy

Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act

2.

act
Those who directly force or induce others to commit

3.

it
Those who cooperate in the commission of the

enough to constitute once party to a conspiracy, but

offense by another act without which it would not

transaction with a view to furtherance of the common

without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not

that there must be intentional participation in the

have been accomplished

design and purpose

CRIMINAL LIBILITY IN ARTICLE 17

-

LENGTH OF TIME IN CONSPIRACY:

Existence of conspiracy does

Offender must fall under the three concepts of said

not

require

necessarily an agreement for an appreciable

paragraph

length of time prior to the execution of its

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRINCIPAL UNDER ANY OF

THE THREE CATEGORIES AND A CO-CONSPIRATOR

-

exists

if,

at

the

time

of

the

commission of the offense, the accused had the

Principal under the three categories:

Criminal liability is limited to his own acts, a co-

conspirators responsibility includes the acts of his

-

purpose
Conspiracy

same purpose and were united in its execution

Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters
agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the

fellow conspirators
Co-conspirator:
Criminal Responsibility includes the acts of his fellow

felony and forthwith decide to pursue it

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY
a) The direct evidence of conspiracy may consist in

conspirators

the interlocking extrajudicial confessions of

Those who take a direct part in the commission of the act

-

A principal by direct participation personally takes

several accused and the testimony of one of the

part in the execution of the act constituting the crime

The one personally committing a crime in obedience

against his co-accused who did not make any

when induced is a principal by direct participation

Two or more persons may take direct part in the

accused who is discharged and made a witness

b)

previous agreement and decision to commit the

execution of the act, in which case they may be

crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors shall

principals by direct participation

REQUISITES

WHEN

OR

MORE

confession
It is not essential that there be proofs as to the

have acted in concert pursuant to the same

PERSONS

objective

ARE

HOW TO DETERMINE CONPIRACY

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

1)

They

resolution

Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among

(Conspiracy)
Two or more persons are said to have participated in

several persons not necessary in conspiracy

It is sufficient that their minds meet understandingly

participated

in

the

criminal

the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy

so as to bring about an intelligent and deliberate

at the time of the commission of the crime

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come

agreement to commit the offense charged

It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the
accused manifested by their acts a common intent or

felony and decide to commit it.

The conspiracy contemplated here is not a felony but

desire to attack so that the act of one accused becomes

only a matter of incurring criminal liability

IN ORDER TO HOLD AN ACCUSED GUILTY AS
-

to an agreement concerning the commission of a

CO-PRINCIPAL BY REASON OF CONSPIRACY

it must be established that he performed an overt act
in furtherance of a conspiracy either by actively

the act of all

If it is proved that two or more persons aimed, by
their acts, at the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts,
though

apparently

independent,

were

in

fact

connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of

personal association and a concurrence of sentiment,

a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual

Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of

meeting among them to concert ways is proved

While conspiracy may be implied from

all. There is collective criminal responsibility

Liability of a conspirator for anothers conspirators

the

circumstances attending the commission of the crime,

it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be

acts which differ radically and substantially from that

established by positive and conclusive evidence.

which they intended to commit

When there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the

(Beyond reasonable doubt)

When there is no conspiracy, each of the offender is

conspirators are liable for its consequences

A conspirator is not liable for anothers crime which is

liable only for the act performed by him.

Participation in criminal resolution is essential
When there is no unity of purpose and intention

not an object of the conspiracy or which is not a

-

necessary and logical consequence thereof

Other defendants will not be held liable for the

killings of persons not covered by the conspiracy

A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted

immediately before the commission of the crime, their

-

criminal responsibility is individual

Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a
common purpose and were united in its execution

before the crime was committed by the others, is not

-

criminally liable.
When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to

ascertain the specific act of each conspirator

When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of

UNITY OF PUROSE AND INTENTION IN THE

COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IS SHOWN IN THE
FF CASES:
a) Spontaneous agreement at the moment of

the offense is not present as regards one of the

the commission of the crime is sufficient to

conspirators is immaterial
In multiple rapes, each rapist is equally liable for the

create joint responsibility

b) Active cooperation by all the offenders in

other rapes.
Participation in anothers criminal resolution must

joint responsibility
- Simultaneity is not a badge of

either precede or coetaneous with the criminal act

There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense

conspiracy absent the concurrence

through negligence
In cases of criminal negligence punishable by

the perpetration of the crime will also create

special law, allowing or failing to prevent an act to be

of wills

performed by another, makes one a co-principal

c) Contributing by positive acts to the

realization of a common criminal intent also
creates joint responsibility

EXCEPTION TO CONSPIRACY

d) Presence during the commission of the

In the crime of parricide, the element of

crime by a band and lending moral support

relationship must be present as regards all the

thereto, also create joint responsibility with

offenders. If it is a stranger who was in

material executors

conspiracy, the charge against him would be

-Conspiracy is presumed when the

crime is committed by a band

element of the crime, all the offenders must have

e) Where one of the accused knew of the

knowledge of the employment of treachery by A,

plan of the others to kill the two victims and

both are liable for murder

Reason: It shall serve to aggravate the

he accepted the role assigned to him, which

was to shoot one of the victims, and he

liability of those persons only who had

actually performed that role, he is a co-

knowledge of them at the time of the

principal by direct participation in the

execution of the act or their cooperation

double murder

therein. Treachery is either a qualifying or a

CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CONSPIRACY

-

There may be conspiracy even if there is no evident

premeditation on the part of the accused

Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of

all. There is collective criminal responsibility

There may be conspiracy even if there is no evident
premeditation on the part of the accused

murder.
In the crime of murder where treachery is an

generic aggravating circumstance.

2)

That they carried out their plan and personally took

part in its execution by acts which directly tended to
the same end
WHEN

THE

SECOND

REQUISITE

LACKING, THERE IS ONLY CONPIRACY

IS

The acts of each offender must directly tend

to the same end

While the principals by direct participation

1)
2)

BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME

-

In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity

of criminal purpose and intention.

Only the one using force or causing fear is criminally

directly contributing to the accomplishment

liable
The material executor is not criminally liable because

of their common purpose

General Rule: One serving

of Article 12, Paragraph 5 and 6.

There are two ways of directly forcing another to

personally take part in the execution of their

common purpose, it is not necessary that
each of them should perform a positive act

as

guard

commit a crime:
a) By using irresistible force
b) By causing uncontrollable fear

pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by

direct participation because he is present,
aiding and abetting in the commission of the
-

crime.
Exception: Ehen there is no conspiracy or
unity of criminal purpose and intention
indicating in the criminal resolution mere

BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A

CRIME
-

There 2 ways of directly inducing another to commit a

crime. They are:
1) By price reward or promise
Both the one giving the price or offer and the

passive presence at the scene of anothers

-

By directly forcing another to commit a crime

By directly inducing another to commit a crime

crime does not constitute complicity.

The principles by direct participation must

one committing the crime in consideration

be at the scene of the crime, personally

-

taking part in its execution

General Rule: A principal

by

direct

participation must personally take part in

2)

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.

Exception: Where there was conspiracy to

INDUCEMENT
-

most persistent effort to secure the commission of the

1)

crime
That the inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime
A thoughtless expression without intention

was killed. The one who kidnapped the

victim was liable for murder committed by
-

To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part

of the inducer the most positive resolution and the

the conspirators kidnapped the victim and

for execution, left the spots where the victim

direct participation
By using words of command

REQUISITES OF BEING CONVICTED AS A PRINCIPAL BY

kidnap and kill the victim and only one of

after turning him over to his co-conspirators

to produce the result is not an inducement to

the others.
The reason for this exception: that by

commit a crime (The person who gave the

advice did not have the intention to procure

kidnapping he victim, he already performed

his part and the killing was done by his co-

conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy

Principals by inducement or principals by induction

The word inducement comprises price, reward or

promise, command and

The principal by induction becomes liable only when
the principal by direct participation committed the act

induced
Possesor of recently stolen property is a principal

TWO WAYS OF BECOMING A PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION

the commission of the crime)

The inducement may be by acts of command,
advice or agreement for a consideration, or
through an influence so effective that it alone

Those who directly force or induce others to commit it

-

thereof are principals

The former, by inducement and the latter by

determines the commission of the crime.

The words of advice or the influence must
have actually moved the hands of the

2)

principal by direct participation

That such inducement be the determining cause of
the commission of the crime by the material executor
It is necessary that the inducement be the
determining cause of the commission of the
crime

by

participation,

the
that

principal
is,

by

without

direct
such

inducement the crime would not have been

-

3)

committed.
Inducement exists if the command or advice
is

of

such

nature

that

without

so efficacious, so powerful as to amount

its

concurrence, the crime would not have

-

materialized.
The inducement must precede the act
induced and must be so influential in

the act would not have been performed.

If the person who actually committed the

was influential in producing the criminal act.

5)

prior to the commission of the crime

The material executor of the crime has

no personal reason to commit the crime

REQUISITES TO HOLD SOMEONE LIABLE AS A

induced the commission of the crime is not

criminally liable.
Ascendance or influence as to amount to

another is a principal by inducement

If the crime committed is not contemplated

2)

participation
Offender who

should

3)

in such a way as to become the

that such inducement was uttered

and

as

efficacious

or

the

crime.

principal by inducement
Principal by inducement:
Involves any crime
Offender who made proposal

to

be punishable
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY
DIRECT PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF
A PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
1) Conspiracy is negative by the acquittal

person who acts. They ought to be

direct

commit

commit a felony:
Must only involve treason or rebellion to

determining cause of the crime and

dominance and influence over the

not

Otherwise, the proponent becomes a

was of such nature and was made

to

person to whom the proposal is made

offense.
It must appear that the inducement

result.
The inciting words must have great

proposal

punishable in treason or rebellion. The

thereof.
BY USING WORDS OF COMMAND:
It must be the moving cause of the

with the intention of producing the

made

commit a felony:
The mere proposal to commit a felony is

material and not the determining cause

commit a crime
Principal by inducement:
Becomes liable only when the crime is
committed by the principal by direct

in the order given, the inducement is not

precedes the commission of the crime

That
such
inducement
is
the

determining cause thereof

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT V OFFENDER WHO

moral coercion is not necessary when there is

no conspiracy
One who planned the crime committed by

and

MADE PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY:

1) In both, there is an inducement to

In such case, the one charged with having

to physical and moral coercion.

The words of command must be uttered

2)

crime had a reason of his own to commit the

crime, it cannot be said that the inducement

4)

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION (PP v Lawas)

1) The inducement is material

producing the criminal act that without it,

-

That the words used must be so direct,

2)

of the co-defendant
One cannot be held guilty of having

powerful as physical or moral

instigated the commission of a crime

coercion or violence itself.

5 REQUISITES OF USING WORDS OF

without first being shown that the crime

COMMAND AS BEING LIABLE

1) That the one uttering the words of

2)

has been actually committed by another

But if the one charged as principal by
direct participation is acquitted because

command must have the intention of

he acted without criminal intent or

procuring the commission of the crime

That the one who made the command

malice, his acquittal is not a ground for

must have an ascendancy or influence

inducement
-Reason for

over the person who acted

the

acquittal

of

the

rule:

principal
In

by

exempting

circumstances, such as when the act is

not voluntary because of lack of intent

on the part of the accused, there is a

If the cooperation of one of the accused

crime committed, only that the accused

consists in performing an act necessary in

is not a criminal. In intentional felonies,

the execution of the crime committed, he is a

the act of a person does not make him

criminal unless his mind is criminal

principal by direct participation

COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
-

Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by

manner and to the same extent. The penalty imposed

another act without which it would not have been

-

accomplished

COOPERATE
-

Means to desire or wish in common a thing but that

collective criminal responsibility with principal

previous understanding, for it can be explained or

-

REQUISITES
1)

purpose and intention immediately before the

commission of the crime charged
Requires participation

in

the

INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

-

commission of the crime, or community of criminal

design, the criminal responsibility arising from

concurrence with the principal by direct

different acts directed against one and the same

participation in the purpose of the latter is

because

the

cooperation

person is individual and not collective and each of the

is

participants is liable only for the act committed by

indispensable to the accomplishment of the

2)

commission of the offense.

Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act, without which it would not
have been accomplished
The cooperation must be indispensable, that
is, without which the crime would not have
been accomplished. If the cooperation is not
indispensable, the offender is only an
-

accomplice
It should not be the act of one who could be
classified as principal by direct participation.

In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of

purpose and intention immediately before the

criminal

resolution. There must be conspiracy but

sufficient

by direct participation
Principal by indispensable cooperation

Has collective responsibility with the principal by

direct participation

Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there

is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal

must be the same for all.

Principals by direct participation:

have collective criminal responsibility.

Principals by induction

Except that who directly forced another to

commit a crime, Principals by induction have

common will or purpose does not necessarily mean

inferred from the circumstances of each case

When the offenders are criminally liable in the same

him.
When there is no pretension that there was any
conspiracy between the accused nor concerted action
pursuant to a common criminal design between them,
each is responsible only for the responsibility of his
own acts.