CAPÍTULO PRIMERO Prevenciones Generales

the execution of the act. In all crimes there must always be those who actually perform the act which brings about the crime. They may be only one person or more. Whenever there are two or more involved in a crime, it becomes necessary to find out those who actually executed the act so that all may be held equally liable.

Requisites:

1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and

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 2nd _{element is absent, those who did not}

participate in the commission of the 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”

1. That PDP must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its execution.

2. Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is equally liable as PDP. To hold two or more persons as principals by direct participation, it must be shown that there exists a conspiracy between and among them. This is not the conspiracy punished as a crime but the conspiracy as a mode or manner of incurring criminally or that legal relationship whereby, in the eyes of the law, it may be said that the act of any one is the act of all.

For conspiracy to exist, there must be an intentional felony, not a culpable felony, and it must be proved that all those to be considered as PDPs performed the following:

80 Legal resources @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com

concurred in the criminal design, intent or purposes or resolution.

1. This participation may be prior to the actual execution of the acts which produced the crime ( Anterior Conspiracy ) or it may be at the very moment the acts are actually being executed and carried out ( Instant Conspiracy).

2. Hence it is not necessary to prove that before the commission of the crime, the several accused actually came and met together to plan or discuss the commission of the crime. 3. ―Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation

by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create a joint criminal responsibility‖ (Sim Jr. vs. CA, 428 SCRA 459)

B. Unity of Action - All participated in the execution or carrying out of the common intent, design, purpose or objective by acts intended to bring about the common objective.

1. Each must have performed an act, no matter how small or insignificant so long as it was intended to contribute to the realization of the crime conspired upon. This requires that the principal by direct participation must be at the crime scene, except in the following instances: (still a principal by direct participation)

a). When he is the mastermind

b). When he orchestrates or directs the actions of the others from some other place c). His participation or contribution was

already accomplished prior to the actual carrying out of the crime conspired such: his role was to conduct surveillance or to obtain data or information about the place or the victims; to purchase the tools or weapons, or the get away vehicle, or to find a safe house

d). His role/participation is to be executed simultaneously but elsewhere, such as by creating a diversion or in setting up a blocking force (e.g. to cause traffic). e). His role/participation is after the execution

of the main acts such as guarding the victim; looking for a buyer of the loot; ―laundering‖ the proceeds of the crime.

Participation In Both (Intention And Action), Why Necessary:

3. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a

view to the furtherance of the criminal design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends companionship. 4. He who commits the same or similar acts on the

victim but is a stranger to the conspiracy is separately liable. Simultaneous acts by several persons do not automatically give rise to conspiracy.

Examples:

1. X joined in the planning of the crime but was unable to join his companions on the day of the crime because he was hospitalized. He is not liable.

2. X is the common enemy of A and B who are strangers to one another. Both A and B chanced upon X. A stabbed X while B shot him. A and B will have individual liabilities. EXCEPTION: When a person joins a conspiracy

after its formation, he thereby adopts the previous acts of the conspirators which are admissible against him. This is under the

Principle of Conspiracy by Adoption.

Proof of Conspiracy

Best proof of conspiracy: express conspiracy

Direct proof of conspiracy is not necessary. The existence thereof maybe inferred under the Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy which directs that if two or more persons:

(v) Aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object. (vi) Each doing a part so that their acts, though

apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative.

(vii) Indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.

(viii) A conspiracy maybe inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved.

Effect of Conspiracy

There will be a joint or common or collective criminal liability, otherwise each will be liable only to the extent of the act done by him.

For what crime will the co-conspirators be liable?

1. For the crime actually committed if it was the crime agreed upon.

2. For any other crime even if not agreed upon, provided it was the direct, natural, logical consequence of, or related to, or was necessary to effect, the crime agreed upon (e.g.killing the guard). Otherwise only the person who committed the different crime will be held liable (e.g. killing a stranger)

81 Legal resources @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com

a. Only if he has performed an overt act either to: 1. Disassociate or detach himself from the plan 2. Prevent the commission of the second or

different or related crime

b. Likewise, if for any reason not attributable to the law enforcement agents, he was not able to proceed to the crime scene and/or execute an act to help realize the common objective, then he cannot be held liable as a co-conspirator. Thus he is not liable if he got sick, overslept, or forgot about it, but not when law agents took him into custody to prevent him from doing his part of the agreement.

Thus in Robbery with Homicide, all who conspired in the robbery will be liable for the homicide unless one of the conspirators proved he tried to prevent the homicide.

Par 2. PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT (PI)