Accessory to the Crime: What is Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code?

Being accessory to the commission of a certain crime also entails criminal liability, though to a lesser degree. Participation of an accessory, as compared to the his principal and the latter’s accomplices may correspond to a reduced imposition of sentence, assuming the accessory is convicted. Thus, we shall now answer the query: What is Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code?

“I am innocent! I was not there when it happened, I did not kill her!” These are the same and repetitive phrases that an apprehended person was shouting, as he was being brought to a police mobile, near your house. It made you wonder that all he was saying was true, because all day – the time when the crime was allegedly committed – you saw him in his house watching television. However, that night prior, you noticed something off. It is when a particular car stopped and a person dropped by in front of his house, carrying a largely suspicious human-shaped garbage. He suddenly and hurriedly turned off the lights, closed the gate, shut the windows, and locked the doors, as if they are hiding something. And then the next day, police was waiting right at his doorstep.

In the cruel world like ours, where the proliferation of crimes is rampant. There are many sides in the commission of a crime. It is obvious that the perpetrator-the one who directly killed the victim-can be convicted and be punished.

Furthermore, his accomplices or those individuals who helped the principal perpetrator in the successful execution of the crime are also being penalized.

However, if in the same aforementioned situation, where a person, obviously, did not participate in the commission of a crime and merely helped in one way or another the principal offender, does it also make him criminally? If yes, to what extent?

Or the main practical question that boggles your mind, “Is his conscience really clear considering that he did not participate in the direct commission of the crime but only helped the offender after the fact?”

 Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code

Under the Philippine Law, the Revised Penal Code provides for the persons criminally liable for felonies. Particularly, it defines accessories under Article 19 of the said code:

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:¹

1. 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.²
   2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.²
   3. 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 the existing jurisprudence, People vs. Verzola,³ defines accessory as an individual who does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part in three ways:⁴

(a) by profiting from the effects of the crime;⁵

(b) by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the crime in order to prevent its discovery; and⁵

(c) by assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his public functions or the principal 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.⁵

Furthermore, it is imperative to note that an accessory is involved after the crime has already been consummated, and not before the consummation of the crime.

Additionally, he must have knowledge of the crime being committed, but must not have taken part in its commission, in order to be considered as an accessory.

On the other hand, the offender is not regarded as an accessory if he has already been involved as a principal or accomplice, even if he did things typical of an accessory.

Profiting or assisting offender to profit by the effects of the crime

An illustration of the first paragraph of Article 19 is when a person buys, purchases, or deals in any way with property knowing that it is the proceed or the object of a crime in which he did not participate as a principal or an accomplice; yet, such individual is either benefiting from the transaction or assisting the thief or robber to profit from the object of the crime.

Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the property must be given by the principal to the accessory, having in mind the purpose under the aforementioned provision. Therefore, the accessory should not take it without the principal’s permission. Otherwise, he is a principal, by his own act, in the crime of theft rather than an accessory if he took it without the principal’s permission.

Furthermore, there have been a confusion on where to draw the border line between Presidential Decree (PD) 1612 or also known as The Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 and paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. Primarily because, they appear to be synonymous and alike with some aspects. However, there are distinct differences that each possesses which make them dissimilar with each other.

First, theft and robbery are the only two crimes defined in fencing. In which, theft and robbery are often used interchangeably to describe any form of criminal taking. However, the scope of accessory in not limited.

Second, a presumption of fencing is created by the mere possession of stolen property. While, in accessory, there is no presumption of being such.

Third, the act of fencing is a principal crime in and of itself. It can therefore stand on its own. Hence, one needs not provide evidence to establish the crime of theft or robbery, as the case may be. On the other hand, in accessory, it is a necessity to prove that the principal was the one who committed the crime. Hence, before an accessory could be held accountable, the principal had to be found guilty of the alleged crime, unless the law provides otherwise.

Fourth, it is not necessary for the fence to be a natural person, rather it might be a firm, association, corporation or partnership or the like. While in accessory, it only pertains to natural persons, alone.

Fifth, fencing is a malum prohibitum; hence, no proof of criminal intent is required. Accessory, on the other hand, is a crime mala in se; thus, the proof of criminal intent is required.

Last, with regard to penalty, fencing has a higher penalty than that of an accessory.

Notwithstanding, it is worthy to note that an accessory accused under Art. 19 (1) may also be charged under PD 1612 for the same offense. What the Constitution prohibits is the prosecution of the accused for the same offense twice.

Concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery

In People vs. Galleto,⁶ the second paragraph of Article 19 was illustrated as follows:

“The mere act of a person carrying the cadaver of one unlawfully killed, when it was buried to prevent the discovery of the crime, is sufficient to make him responsible as an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19.”⁷

Furthermore, under this specific provision of the law, the term “corpus delicti” was made mention of. In the case of Inovero vs. Coronel,⁸ the Supreme Court discussed that:

“The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, not necessarily the corpse. Thus, even if the corpse is not recovered, as long as the killing is established beyond reasonable doubt, criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti in order to prevent discovery, such act would make him an accessory.”⁸

In addition, corpus delicti has its elements, which are:

1. The existence of a specific act or outcome that serves as the basis for the criminal charge; and
2. The presence of a criminal agency as the cause or outcome of the act or result.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that another way to destroy the corpus delicti is to intentionally mislead the investigating police officer in an effort to hide the crime or aid the criminal in escaping.

Harboring or concealing an offender

Under paragraph 3 of Article 19, there are two (2) persons that are contemplated and may be held guilty as an accessory, they are:

1. Public Officers

In order for a public officer to qualify as an accessory under Article 19 (3), the following requisites must be met:

• Accessory is a public officer;
• He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal;
• He acts with abuse of his public functions; and
• The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.⁹

The offense that the principal committed in the instance of a public officer is irrelevant. Such an officer is deemed an accessory by virtue of the fact that he harbored, concealed, used, and thus abused his official role in aid of the principal’s escape; however, the offender whom he harbors, conceals, or aids in the flight must be a principal.

In fact, the Supreme Court, in the case of U.S. vs. Yacat,¹⁰ has illustrated this specific provision of the law:

“Abusing his public office, the president of the town of Cabiao refused to prosecute the crime of homicide and thus made it possible for the principal to escape. He refused to make an investigation of the serious occurrence, of which complaint was made to him. The municipal president was found guilty as an accessory.”¹¹

On the other hand, pursuant to Article 19 Paragraph 3 of the RPC, a public officer is not held accountable if he or she helped an accomplice or accessory escape. Nonetheless, PD 1829 holds him accountable for obstruction of justice.

2. Private Person

Meanwhile, a private is considered to be an accessory under Article 19 (3) if:

• Accessory is a private person;
• He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime (he could be a principal, accomplice, or an accessory); and
• The crime committed by the principal is either:

1. 1. Treason
   2. Parricide
   3. Murder
   4. Attempt against the life of the President
   5. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.¹²

Furthermore, with regard to the correlation of the principal and accessory’s guilt, as a general rule, without a conviction for a similar offense on the part of the principal, the accessory cannot be held criminally liable.

However, as an exception, if the accessory profits from the effects of the crime, even without the prior conviction of the principal, the former may still be held criminally liable.

Instances when accessories cannot be held criminally liable

There are two (2) instances when a person, although can be considered as an accessory, is not criminally liable:

1. The felony committed is a light felony.
2. Article 20 of the same code provides for the second instance of accessories who are not criminally liable. Whereas such accessory is related to the principal offender as spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.¹³

Relevant Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in an array of decisions, has ruled over a numerous number of cases involving Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, and some of them are as follows:

In the case of People vs. Tanchoco,¹⁴ whereas, in the City of Manila’s Court of First Instance, defendant and appellant Samuel Tanchoco y Marcelo was charged with stealing US Army goods worth around P5,346 on or around April 7, 1945, in collusion with an American negro soldier. The stolen items included 24 bales of Army fatigue suits, woolen blankets, towels, and caps.¹⁵

Hence, the Supreme Court held that:

 “A person who receives any property from another, which he knows to have been stolen, for the purpose of selling the same and to share in the proceeds of the sale, is guilty of the crime of theft, as an accessory after the fact. (United States vs. Galanco, 11 Phil., 575.) In the same manner that a person who receives a stolen property, for the purpose of concealing the same, is likewise guilty of the crime of theft, as an accessory after the fact. (United States vs. Villaluz, 32 Phil., 376.).”¹⁵

On the other hand, in the case of U.S. vs. Leal,¹⁶ where the two accused, Baldomero Lacasandeli and Rufino Lastimosa, played key roles as accessory to the crime.

Lacasandeli was present when the crime was committed, and although this is not true as to Lastimosa, nevertheless upon entering the house he saw a corpse covered with wounds, and although neither of these defendants took part in the perpetration of the crime itself, they nevertheless aided the principals to conceal the body by unlawfully burying it in a field to that end and by neglecting to inform the authorities of the facts known to them.¹⁷

Thus, the Supreme Court decided that any person who helps bury a homicide victim in order to cover up the crime is considered as an accessory.

Lastly, in the case of U.S. vs. Caballeros,¹⁸ where the defendants were found guilty of being accessories after the fact in the murder or assassination of American schoolteachers Louis A. Thomas, Clyde O. France, John E. Wells, and Ernest Eger by the Court of First Instance of Cebu because, despite not being involved in the crime as principals or accomplices, they assisted in burying the victims’ corpses in an effort to cover up their involvement.¹⁹

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the perpetration of the crime, which seems to be one of the motives for the conviction and which the court below takes into consideration in his judgment, is not punished by the Penal Code and therefore that can not render the defendants criminally liable according to law.”¹⁹

Thus, a person who saw the commission of a crime, say murder, by another whom he knew, kept silent with regard to it, and did not report it to any of the authorities is not liable even as an accessory.

Summary

In summary, Article 19 defines accessories as those who are not directly involved in the planning or execution of a crime but who are aware of its commission are still complicit in three ways:

• Profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
• Concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery; and
• Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.

Under the first paragraph of Article 19, The principal must grant the accessory the property. He shouldn’t take it without the principal’s consent, therefore. If he took it without the principal’s consent, he is not an accessory to the crime but a principal in it.

On the other hand, under the second paragraph of the same, the term corpus delicti was discussed, in which it is the body of the crime, however not necessarily the corpse. Whereas it was being concealed or destroyed in order to not be discovered.

Lastly, under the third paragraph, the law contemplated two (2) offenders which can either be: (a) public officer or (b) private person.

Hence, certain requisites must be fulfilled in order to qualify as an accessory to both, as for public officers:

• Accessory is a public officer;
• He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal;
• He acts with abuse of his public functions; and
• The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.

While, as for private persons:

• Accessory is a private person;
• He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime (he could be a principal, accomplice, or an accessory); and
• The crime committed by the principal is either:

1. 1. Treason
   2. Parricide
   3. Murder
   4. Attempt against the life of the President
   5. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Conclusion

To conclude, often times we think that the only persons who can be punished for the commission of a crime are those who principally executed it and their accomplices.

However, this specific provision of the law taught us that, even though, someone did not actively participate before and during the commission of the crime, but has knowledge of the same and, in one way or another, helped the offender after the commission of the crime, can also be held criminally liable under the Philippine Law.

Furthermore, there are respective penalties for such, that are further elaborated in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

Hence, one cannot claim that his conscience is clear when he did not even lay hands on the victim but only responsible for helping the offender. The same is guilty, maybe not as much as the offender, but the bottom line here is, he is still guilty as charged.

1. Article 19, Revised Penal Code[↩]
2. Id.[↩][↩][↩]
3. G.R. No. L-35022, December 21, 1977, 80 SCRA 600, 608[↩]
4. Ibid.[↩]
5. Ibid[↩][↩][↩]
6. 78 Phil. 820[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩]
8. 65 O.G. 3160[↩][↩]
9. The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book One, Articles 1-113, 2021 Edition, Luis B. Reyes, p. 585[↩]
10. G.R. No. 110, October 24, 1902[↩]
11. Ibid.[↩]
12. The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book One, Articles 1-113, 2021 Edition, Luis B. Reyes, p. 585-586[↩]
13. Article 20, Revised Penal Code[↩]
14. G.R. No. L-38, April 6, 1946[↩]
15. Ibid.[↩][↩]
16. G.R. No. 432, February 6, 1902, 1 Phil. 118[↩]
17. Ibid.[↩]
18. G.R. No. 1352, March 29, 1905 4 Phil. 350[↩]
19. Ibid.[↩][↩]