Have you ever wondered who can be held criminally liable for a crime? In other words, who are the persons criminally liable for felonies when we talk about the Revised Penal code. Is it just the person who committed the act? Or can others be held accountable as well?
These are important questions to ask when it comes to understanding the intricacies of criminal law. Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code sheds light on who exactly can be held criminally liable for a crime. So, let’s dive in and explore who is considered legally responsible under this provision!
Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines who are criminally liable for the commission of an offense. It is a fundamental provision of Philippine criminal law that sets the legal framework for determining the accountability of individuals for their actions.
This article lays down the general rule that only those who have participated in the commission of the offense can be held liable. However, it also provides for certain exceptions and special circumstances that broaden the scope of criminal liability.
To better understand the Article of the Revised Penal Code and its implications, it is necessary to examine its provisions in detail and the principles that underpin it. Moreover, it is important to consider the various scenarios and situations that can arise during criminal proceedings, including issues of conspiracy, accessory liability, and the role of corporations in criminal offenses.
With these factors in mind, a critical analysis of Article 16 can provide insights into the workings of the Philippine criminal justice system and the principles that guide it.
The Law | Who are the persons criminally liable for felonies?
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. – The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:1
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:2
Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides the different individuals who may be held criminally liable for committing grave and less grave felonies. These individuals are the principals, accomplices, and accessories.2
Principals
Article 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:3
- Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;2
- Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;2
- Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.2
Under this provision, a principal is a person who directly participates in the commission of the crime. A principal may be a perpetrator or a co-perpetrator of the crime. In the commission of the crime, the principal may have acted alone or with other individuals. The principal is considered the most culpable of the three types of individuals who may be held criminally liable.3
Accomplices
Article 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.4
Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code states that accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.2
An accomplice is a person who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. An accomplice may provide assistance, encouragement, or support to the principal. The accomplice may be held criminally liable even if the crime committed is different from the one intended.
Accessories
Article 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:5
- By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.2
- By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.2
- By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.2
Under this provision states that accessories are those who has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or by harboring or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator, with the intent to prevent his apprehension.2
An accessory is a person who has knowledge of the commission of the crime and who, without having participated in its commission as a principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or accomplice, or by acquiring or possessing the effects of the crime.
According to Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code, both principals and accomplices are criminally liable for light felonies. This is because the law treats light felonies as the least serious category of crimes, and it holds all individuals who participated in the commission of such crimes accountable for their actions.
The basis for this can be found in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.6
In other words, anyone who participates in the commission of a crime, whether as a principal or accomplice, is held accountable for the resulting harm or damage caused by the crime, even if their specific actions were not the primary cause of the harm.
Furthermore, Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that accomplices are liable to the same extent as principals, even if an individual did not directly commit the light felony, but simply aided or abetted the principal offender, they are equally liable for the crime.7
The Revised Penal Code holds both principals and accomplices accountable for light felonies, regardless of the level of their participation in the commission of the crime. This is based on the legal principles of criminal liability and accomplice liability as outlined in Article 4 and Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Relevant jurisprudence
One relevant jurisprudence regarding Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code on grave and less grave felonies is one case, where the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a principal and an accomplice in the commission of a crime.
Neither can the appellant be considered a principal by indispensable cooperation, nor an accomplice in the crime of murder. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished.8
In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.9
On hypothetical note, assume that the accused was charged with the crime of murder for allegedly conspiring with his co-accused to kill the victim. The accused argued that he was merely an accomplice and not a principal in the commission of the crime, thus, should only be held liable for the lesser offense of homicide.
Necessarily, the accused may be a principal by direct participation in the commission of the crime, as he was the one who personally fired the gun that caused the victim’s death. It is advanced that even if the accused did not have any prior agreement with his co-accused to commit the crime, his act of shooting the victim constituted a direct participation in the commission of the offense. Thus:
The difference between an accused who is a principal under any of the three categories enumerated in Art. 17 of the Revised Penal Code and a co-conspirator who is also a principal is that while the former’s criminal liability is limited to his own acts, as a general rule, the latter’s responsibility includes the acts of his fellow conspirators.10
This case emphasizes the importance of determining the degree of participation of an accused in the commission of a crime to properly classify their criminal liability under Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code. Also, even if an accused is not part of an initial conspiracy to commit a crime, his direct participation in the commission of the offense makes him a principal and not just an accomplice.
On another point, the liability of an accessory for a crime is dependent upon the existence of a prior principal or accomplice. Thus, an accessory cannot be convicted without a prior conviction of the principal or accomplice, except in cases where the principal or accomplice is unknown, has been granted immunity, or is already deceased.
It is emphasized that the accessory must have knowledge of the commission of the crime and must have aided or abetted the principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime.
In addition, there are case related to Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with the criminal liability of principals and accomplices for light felonies. Hence, the principal and the accomplice were both liable for the crime of slight physical injuries, a light felony.
The principal inflicted the physical injuries while the accomplice merely restrained the victim from escaping. The court held that both the principal and the accomplice were guilty of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which is a light felony, since both of them performed acts that contributed to the commission of the offense.11
Jurisprudence also tells us that an accused who acted as a principal and an accomplice at the same time may be held liable for the light felony of slight physical injuries.1
Supposing, the accused, who was a barangay tanod, hit the victim with a baton, while his companions held the victim down. In this situation, the accused acted as a principal because he directly inflicted the physical injuries, and acted as an accomplice because he cooperated in the commission of the offense with his companions. Thus, he was liable for the light felony of slight physical injuries.1
Summary
Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code is a critical provision in determining criminal liability. It outlines the legal framework for holding principals, accomplices, and accessories accountable for their actions. By understanding the intricacies of this provision, we can work towards creating a just and fair society.
It provides for the different individuals who may be held criminally liable for committing grave and less grave felonies. The principal is the person who directly participates in the commission of the crime, the accomplice is the person who cooperates in the execution of the crime, and the accessory is the person who has knowledge of the crime and takes part subsequent to its commission.
The Revised Penal Code holds both principals and accomplices accountable for light felonies, regardless of the level of their participation in the commission of the crime. This is based on the legal principles of criminal liability and accomplice liability, as outlined in Articles 4 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Conclusion
Understanding who can be held criminally liable for a crime is crucial in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice is served. Whether you’re a principal, accomplice, or accessory, Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code lays out the legal framework for determining criminal liability. By holding all parties accountable for their actions, we can work towards creating a fair and just society for all.
- Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code[↩][↩][↩]
- Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
- Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code[↩][↩]
- Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
- Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
- Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
- Supra., Article 18[↩]
- People vs. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379 April 22, 1994[↩]
- Ibid.[↩]
- People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968[↩]
- Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code[↩]