Criminal Law I > Article 17 > Flashcards

Article 17 Flashcards

(58 cards)

Study These Flashcards
1
Q

Under Art. 17 of the RPC, who are considered principals? (3)

A
  1. Those who take a DIRECT PART in the EXECUTION of the act;
  2. Those who directly FORCE or INDUCE others to commit it
  3. Those who COOPERATE in the commission of the offense by ANOTHER ACT without which it would not have been accomplished
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The three kinds of principals as provided for under Art. 17 of the RPC (3)

A
  1. Principal by direct participation
  2. Principal by induction
  3. Principal by indispensable cooperation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Difference between a principal in Art. 17 of the RPC and a co-conspirator

A

A principal’s criminal liability is limited to his own acts, btu as a general rule, the co-conspirator’s liability includes the acts of his felow conspirators

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What do you mean by “take a direct part in the execution of the act”?

A

The principal by direct participation personally takes part in the execution of the act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Requisites for principals by direct participation (2)

A
  1. That they PARTICIPATED IN THE CRIMINAL RESOLUTION;
  2. That they CARRIED OUT their plan and PERSONALLY TOOK PART in its execution by acts which DIRECTLY TENDED TO THE SAME END
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How does one become a party to the conspiracy?

A

One must have INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
This may be shown by an OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy by:
1. Actively participating in the actual commission of the crime; or
2. Lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the cene of the crime; or
3. Exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Does mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act without cooperation or agreement make one a party to the conspiracy?

A

No, there must be intentional participation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Is silence a circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design? (Does it make one a conspirator?)

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Does conspiracy transcend companionship?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Does the existence of conspiracy require an agreement for an appreciable length of time prior to the execution for its purpose?

A

No, it does not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Proofs of conspiracy (2)

A
  1. Interlocking extrajudicial confessions of the accused
  2. Malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

In conspiracy, is a formal agreement among the conspirators necessary?

A

No, not even previous acquaintance among themselves
It is sufficient that their minds meet understandingly so as to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Does conspiracy need to be proved by direct evidence?

A

No, it can be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. However, it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, meaning proof beyond reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Does mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission establish conspiracy?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

To be a conspirator, must the person have previous knowledge of the criminal purpose?

A

Yes, the assistance should be knowingly or intentionally given

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When is conspiracy implied?

A

When the accused had a common purpose and were united in its execution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Cases in which unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime creating joint responisibility is shown: (5)

A
  1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
  2. Active coopoeration by all the offenders
  3. Contributing 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
  5. Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the others to kill the victims and he accepted the role assigned to him to shoot one of the victims
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Does simultaneity automatically prove conspiracy?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Is conspiracy presumed when the crime is committed by a band?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

General rule as to whether the owner of a safe house is a conspirator or not

A

In the absence of his knowledge, consent or concurrence in the criminal design, the owner of a place, which was used to detain kidnapped victims, cannot necessarily be considered as either a conspirator or an accomplice in the crime of kidnapping for ransom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

In kidnapping for ransom, what is the primary consideration?

A

The place where the victim is to be detained

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

May there be conspiracy even if there is no evident premediation on the part of the accused?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Is a conspirator liable for another’s crime which is not an object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical consequence thereof?

A

No, co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Does conspiracy cover persons previously undetermined?

Study These Flashcards
A

Yes, in cases that there was a general plan to kill anyone who might put up violent resistance

25
Can a co-conspirator who desisted before the crime was commited be not criminally liable?
Yes, even if the desistance was made as soon as the aggression was started
26
When there is conspiracy, is it necessary to ascertain the specific act of each conspirator?
No, since the act of one is the act of all
27
When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the offense is not present as regards one of the conspirators is immaterial, however, provide the exceptions (2)
1. In crime of parricide, the element of relationship must be present as regards all the offenders 2. In crime of murder where treachery is an element, all the offenders must at least have knowledge of the employment of treachery at the time of the execution (Art. 62, par. 4)
28
In multiple rape, is each rapist equally liable for the other rapes?
Yes
29
Can there be conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence?
No, except when the criminal negligence or crime is punishable by special law which makes one a co-principal
30
What do you mean by "personaly 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 Exception: when there was conspiracy to kidnap and kill, the one who kidnapped was liable for murder committed by the others. This is because he already performed his part and the killing done was by his co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy
31
Spanish for "principals by inducement" or "principals by induction"
*autores por induccion*
32
What does "inducement" comprise? (4)
1. Price 2. Promise of reward 3. Command 4. Pacto
33
When does the principal by induction become liable?
Only when the principal by direct participation committed the act induced
34
Two ways of becoming principal by induction (2)
1. By directly FORCING another to commit a crime; 2. By directly INDUCING another to commit a crime
35
Two ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime (2)
1. By using irresistible force 2. By causing uncontrollable fear
36
Is there conspiracy by directly forcing another to commit a crime?
No, only the one using force or causing fear is criminally liable
37
Two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime (2)
1. By giving price, or offering reward or promise 2. By using words of command
38
Requisites for principal by induction (2)
1. That the inducement be made directly WITH THE INTENTION of procuring the commission of the crime 2. That such inducement be the DETERMINING CAUSE of the commission of the crime by the material executor
39
To constitute inducement, what must exist? (2)
There must exist on the part of the inducer: 1. Most POSITIVE RESOLUTION and most PERSISTENT EFFORT to secure the commission of the crime; and 2. Together with the PRESENTATION to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime
40
Is a thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result an inducement to commit a crime?
No, a thoughtless expression or act, without any expectation or intention that it would produce the result, is not an inducement to commit a crime
41
The inducement may be by: (4)
1. Acts of command 2. Advice 3. Through influence 4. Agreement for consideration
42
If the principal by direct participation had a personal reason to commit the crime, will there be a principal by induction still?
No
43
Is there inducement when the price is given after the commission of the crime, without prior promise to give a price or reward?
No, the inducement must preced the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would not have been performed
44
When will words of command be the determining cause to be considered inducement by the principal by induction?
The words must have great DOMINANCE and INFLUENCE over the person who acts
45
Five requisites for a person using words of command to be held liable as principal by induction (5)
1. That the one uttering the words of command must have INTENTION of procuring the commission of the crime 2. That the one who made the command must have an ASCENDANCY or INFLUENCE over the person who acted 3. That the words used must be so DIRECT, so EFFICACIOUS, so POWERFUL as to amount to physical or moral coercion 4. The words of command must be uttered PRIOR to the commission of the crime 5. The material executor of the crime HAS NO PERSONAL REASON to commit the crime
46
Is ascendancy or influence as to amount to moral coercion necessary when there is conspiracy?
No, there is collective responsibility when words of inducement were used
47
Are the persons who planned the crime committed by another deemd to be principals by inducement?
Yes, the persons who planned the crime committed by other persons are guilty as authors by inducement
48
Distinguish principal by inducement and offender who made proposal to commit a felony (3)
1. In both, there is an inducement to commit a crime 2. Principal by inducement becomes liable only when the crime is committed by the principal by direct participation; the mere proposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason or rebellion and that the person to whom the proposal is made should not commit the crime; otherwise, the proponent becomes a principal by inducement 3. The principal by inducement involves any crime, in proposal, for it to be punishable, it must involve only treason or rebellion
49
Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon the liability of principal by inducement (2)
1. Conspiracy is negatived by 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
50
When the one charged as principaly by direct participation is acquitted because of exempting circumstances (without criminal intent or malice), is his acquittal a ground for the acquittal of the principal by inducement?
No, the principal by inducement will still be liable
51
Under the Section 5(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, is the possessor of a recently stolen article considered a principal?
Yes, unless he proves in a satisfactory manner that he is but an accessory or an accomplice
52
Define "cooperate"
To cooperate means 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
53
Requisites for principals by direct cooperation (2)
1. PARTICIPATION in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal prupose 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 (Indispensible)
54
May there be cooperation by acts of negligence?
Yes
55
In cooperation, if if its not indispensible, is the offender still a principal by direct cooperation?
No, he is an accomplice
56
If the cooperation of one of the accused consists in performing an act necessary in the execution of the crime committed, is he still a principal by cooperation?
No, he is a principal by direct participation
57
When is there collective criminal responsibility?
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
58
Which principals have collective criminal responsibility (3)
1. Principals by direct participation 2. Principal by direct induction, except that who directly forced another, with the principal by direct participation 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation with the principal by direct participation
Criminal Law I
flashcards
Decks in class (43)
# Cards
Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2026 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions