Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation

P.D. No. 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders) | Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation | REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (Presidential Decree No. 1829)

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1829, enacted on January 16, 1981, criminalizes acts that obstruct justice by hindering or impeding the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. This law ensures that individuals, either directly or indirectly, involved in obstructing the enforcement of justice are held accountable.

Below is a detailed analysis of P.D. No. 1829, focusing on its provisions, elements, penalties, and jurisprudence:

1. Overview and Purpose

P.D. No. 1829 seeks to:

  • Promote the swift and efficient administration of justice.
  • Deter individuals from interfering with law enforcement processes or judicial proceedings.
  • Penalize acts that prevent the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

The decree recognizes the critical need for unhampered law enforcement and prosecution processes in upholding public safety and justice.

2. Prohibited Acts Under P.D. No. 1829

The decree enumerates various acts that constitute obstruction of justice, including but not limited to:

  1. Preventing Apprehension:

    • Harboring or concealing the principal or accomplice of a crime to prevent their arrest.
    • Assisting a fugitive in evading capture.

  2. Tampering with Evidence:

    • Altering, destroying, suppressing, or fabricating evidence to affect its integrity or availability during an investigation or trial.

  3. Influencing Witnesses:

    • Using force, intimidation, or deceit to prevent witnesses from testifying.
    • Encouraging witnesses to provide false testimony.

  4. Obstructing Law Enforcement:

    • Deliberately refusing to provide information when required by law enforcement.
    • Blocking law enforcement officers from performing their duties.

  5. Interfering with Criminal Prosecution:

    • Offering money, gifts, or other incentives to influence the outcome of a criminal case.
    • Hindering the prosecution by refusing to cooperate or provide necessary documentation.

  6. Misleading Authorities:

    • Giving false or misleading information to law enforcement or judicial authorities.

3. Elements of the Offense

To establish liability under P.D. No. 1829, the prosecution must prove:

  1. The accused committed one of the acts enumerated under the decree.
  2. The act was willful and intentional.
  3. The purpose of the act was to obstruct, impede, or delay the apprehension or prosecution of a criminal offender.

4. Penalties

P.D. No. 1829 imposes imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years, or a fine ranging from ₱6,000 to ₱12,000, or both. The penalty varies depending on the gravity of the act committed.

Additionally, if the obstruction results in a more serious offense (e.g., aiding the escape of a person guilty of a heinous crime), the penalty may be adjusted accordingly, subject to the discretion of the court.

5. Exemptions and Justifying Circumstances

Certain acts, although appearing to obstruct justice, may not constitute a violation under P.D. No. 1829:

  • Good Faith: Acts performed without the intent to obstruct justice.
  • Exercise of Rights: Legitimate exercise of constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.
  • Lawful Exceptions: Situations authorized by law, such as privileged communication between lawyer and client.

6. Jurisprudence and Case Law

Philippine courts have addressed obstruction of justice in various rulings, emphasizing:

  • Intent as a Crucial Element: The prosecution must establish that the accused had a deliberate intent to obstruct justice.
  • Due Process for the Accused: Obstruction charges must not infringe on the constitutional rights of the accused.
  • Circumstantial Evidence: Acts of obstruction may be proven through circumstantial evidence if direct evidence is unavailable.

Examples of notable cases:

  • People v. xxxx: The Supreme Court ruled that harboring a fugitive relative, without evidence of intent to obstruct justice, does not constitute a violation of P.D. No. 1829.
  • People v. yyyy: Altering evidence during an ongoing investigation was deemed a direct obstruction, warranting conviction under the decree.

7. Related Legal Principles

P.D. No. 1829 intersects with other provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and special laws, such as:

  • RPC Article 19-22 (Persons Criminally Liable): Clarifies liabilities for principals, accomplices, and accessories.
  • RPC Article 183 (False Testimony): Addresses penalties for perjury and giving false testimony.
  • Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019): Penalizes acts of corruption that obstruct justice.

8. Importance and Criticism

Significance:

  • Enhances accountability by criminalizing acts that delay justice.
  • Reinforces law enforcement efforts and judicial processes.

Criticisms:

  • Potential for Abuse: Authorities might misuse the law to suppress dissent or retaliate against political opponents.
  • Ambiguity: Some provisions are broad and open to varying interpretations, leading to potential misapplication.

9. Practical Implications

Lawyers, law enforcement officers, and the public must be aware of P.D. No. 1829's provisions to:

  • Avoid inadvertent violations.
  • Ensure proper implementation and adherence to due process.
  • Promote public awareness of the legal consequences of obstructing justice.

Conclusion: P.D. No. 1829 plays a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law in the Philippines. By penalizing actions that obstruct justice, it ensures that offenders are brought to trial and justice is served. However, vigilance is required to prevent abuse and ensure the law's application remains consistent with constitutional principles.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) | Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation | REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE (P.D.) NO. 1612 (ANTI-FENCING LAW)

I. Introduction

P.D. No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, aims to penalize the act of fencing, which is the acquisition, possession, or disposal of property that has been unlawfully obtained through crimes such as robbery or theft. The decree addresses the growing problem of fencing as a key enabler of criminal enterprises by targeting those who profit from stolen property.

II. Key Provisions of P.D. No. 1612

1. Definition of Fencing (Section 2):

  • Fencing is defined as:
    • The act of buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of items;
    • With the knowledge or reasonable belief that the items are stolen or obtained through robbery or theft.

2. Punishable Acts:

  • Any act that facilitates the disposal or sale of stolen property falls under the definition of fencing.

3. Penalties (Section 3):

  • The penalties for fencing are based on the value of the stolen property:
    • Value does not exceed PHP 5,000: Arresto Mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1 day to 6 months).
    • Value exceeds PHP 5,000 but does not exceed PHP 12,000: Prision Correccional in its minimum period (6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months).
    • Value exceeds PHP 12,000 but does not exceed PHP 22,000: Prision Correccional in its medium period (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
    • Value exceeds PHP 22,000: Prision Mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day to 8 years), with an additional penalty of one year for every PHP 10,000 beyond PHP 22,000. However, the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
  • If the offender is a juridical entity, the penalty is imposed on the responsible officers or employees.

4. Presumption of Fencing (Section 5):

  • The law provides for a prima facie presumption of fencing:
    • A person found in possession of stolen property is presumed to have acquired it knowing it was stolen, unless they can prove otherwise.
  • This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused, which is a significant deviation from the general rule that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

III. Relation to Other Crimes

1. Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery:

  • Theft or robbery pertains to the unlawful taking of property.
  • Fencing, on the other hand, involves the subsequent act of dealing with the stolen property.
  • Both the thief/robber and the fence can be held criminally liable, as fencing is considered a distinct offense.

2. Fencing as a Malum Prohibitum Crime:

  • Unlike theft or robbery, which are malum in se (inherently evil), fencing is malum prohibitum (prohibited by law).
  • Criminal intent is irrelevant; mere possession of stolen goods creates liability unless the possessor can demonstrate a legitimate source.

IV. Applicability to Juridical Persons

  • Corporations, partnerships, or associations involved in fencing activities are subject to prosecution.
  • The officers, directors, or employees directly involved in the act are held personally liable.

V. Preventive Measures and Enforcement

1. Registration of Dealers (Section 6):

  • All pawnshops, dealers, and traders of used items must register with their respective city or municipal treasurers.
  • Failure to register constitutes a violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.

2. Inspection by Law Enforcement:

  • Law enforcement agencies are authorized to conduct inspections of establishments dealing in second-hand goods to ensure compliance with the law.

VI. Key Legal Doctrines and Jurisprudence

1. Prima Facie Presumption of Knowledge:

  • The Supreme Court has upheld that possession of stolen property, absent satisfactory explanation, constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge that the items were unlawfully obtained.
  • The accused must present credible evidence to rebut this presumption.

2. Separate Liability for Fencing:

  • Jurisprudence affirms that fencing is a separate and distinct offense from theft or robbery.
  • Conviction for fencing does not preclude prosecution for theft/robbery or vice versa.

3. Strict Liability Nature:

  • Given its malum prohibitum classification, mere possession suffices for conviction, provided the presumption is not rebutted.

VII. Common Defenses

1. Lack of Knowledge:

  • The accused must demonstrate that they had no knowledge or reason to believe the goods were stolen.
  • Examples include providing documentation or proof of legitimate purchase.

2. Absence of Possession or Control:

  • A defendant can argue that they were never in actual possession or control of the stolen items.

VIII. Implications for Businesses

1. Compliance Requirements:

  • Pawnshops and dealers must maintain proper documentation of transactions and ensure compliance with registration and inspection mandates.

2. Risk Management:

  • Establishments dealing with second-hand goods must institute due diligence processes to verify the legitimacy of items purchased or traded.

IX. Practical Notes for Enforcement

  • The Anti-Fencing Law provides law enforcement with tools to target the demand side of the market for stolen goods.
  • Vigilant implementation, including public awareness and cooperation among stakeholders, is crucial to its effectiveness.

X. Conclusion

P.D. No. 1612 serves as a robust deterrent against fencing by punishing both the act itself and its enablers. Its focus on penalizing possession of stolen goods strengthens the broader framework of criminal law, targeting not just perpetrators of theft or robbery but also the illegal marketplace that sustains such activities.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories | Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation | REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

C. Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation
1. Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories

Under Philippine criminal law, the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines the persons who may be held criminally liable based on their degree of participation in the commission of a crime. This topic is governed primarily by Articles 16 to 20 of the Revised Penal Code. Below is a meticulous breakdown:

I. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

According to Article 16 of the RPC, the following are considered criminally liable:

  1. Principals
  2. Accomplices
  3. Accessories

The categorization is based on the level of participation and the timing of the involvement in the crime.

II. PRINCIPALS

A principal is someone who takes a direct and immediate part in the commission of a crime or contributes an indispensable act toward its consummation. Principals are divided into three types, as enumerated in Article 17:

A. Principal by Direct Participation

  1. These are the persons who directly commit the act that constitutes the crime.
    • Example: A person who physically stabs the victim in a homicide.

B. Principal by Induction

  1. These are individuals who directly force, induce, or influence another to commit a crime.
    • Elements for liability:
      1. Inducement must be intentional.
      2. It must be specific and direct.
    • Example: A mastermind who convinces someone to commit arson by paying them.

C. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

  1. These are persons who cooperate in the commission of the offense by performing an act without which the crime would not have been successfully carried out.
    • Example: A lookout who ensures that the perpetrators are not caught during a robbery.

Note:

  • Principals are equally liable for the crime committed and receive the same penalty unless mitigating or aggravating circumstances apply.

III. ACCOMPLICES

An accomplice is someone who participates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts, but whose role is less direct than that of a principal. Defined under Article 18, an accomplice:

  1. Knows the criminal design or plan.
  2. Cooperates in the execution of the crime by performing acts that are not indispensable but still contribute to its execution.

Key Points on Accomplice Liability:

  • The participation of the accomplice must be merely secondary or supportive.
  • Example: Providing information to aid in the crime, such as the schedule of a security guard to facilitate a burglary.

Penalty for Accomplices:

  • Accomplices are generally given a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for principals, per the rules on mitigating circumstances in Article 52 of the RPC.

IV. ACCESSORIES

An accessory, as defined under Article 19, is someone who, despite not taking a direct or indirect part in the commission of the crime, assists the principal or accomplice after the crime has been committed. The law recognizes three specific acts of accessories:

A. Assistance to Escape

  1. Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal(s) or accomplice(s), provided they:
    • Did so knowingly, with the intent to help avoid apprehension.

B. Profiting from the Crime

  1. Benefiting from the effects or proceeds of the crime by profiting themselves or helping another benefit.

C. Obstruction of Justice

  1. Concealing or destroying evidence of the crime.
  2. Using means to prevent the discovery of the crime or the apprehension of the offenders.

Exemption for Relatives:

  • Article 20 provides that the following relatives of the principal or accomplice are exempt from accessory liability (except in cases of crimes against chastity, such as rape):
    • Spouse.
    • Ascendants (parents, grandparents).
    • Descendants (children, grandchildren).
    • Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters.
    • Relatives by affinity within the same degree.

Penalty for Accessories:

  • Accessories generally receive a penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for principals.

V. RULES ON DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

  1. Conspiracy and Unity of Purpose:

    • When a conspiracy is proven, all conspirators are treated as principals, regardless of the degree of participation (Article 8, RPC).
    • A mere agreement to commit a crime does not make one liable unless an overt act is performed.

  2. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances:

    • The court may adjust penalties based on circumstances affecting the degree of culpability or the nature of participation.

  3. Justifying and Exempting Circumstances:

    • Certain individuals may be exempt from criminal liability, such as those acting in self-defense or under compulsion (Articles 11-12, RPC).

VI. JURISPRUDENCE AND APPLICATION

Key rulings provide guidance on the classification and treatment of persons criminally liable:

  1. People v. Sumbillo: Clarified the elements required to convict a principal by inducement.
  2. People v. Lizada: Highlighted the importance of proving conspiracy to hold all participants equally liable.
  3. People v. Mendoza: Distinguished between accomplices and accessories by emphasizing the timing and nature of the acts performed.

This detailed framework reflects the meticulous delineation of liability under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, ensuring just and proportionate penalties for all degrees of participation in criminal offenses.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation | REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

(Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines – Book One)

I. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code identifies persons criminally liable as:

  1. Principals

    • Defined as the persons who directly participate in the execution of the crime.
    • Modes of participation:
      a. By direct participation – They take direct part in the execution of the crime. Example: The person who fires the gun in a murder case.
      b. By inducement – They directly induce others to commit the crime. Example: A person offering money to someone to kill a rival.
      c. By indispensable cooperation – Their participation is indispensable to the commission of the crime. Example: A lookout who prevents the victim from escaping during a robbery.

  2. Accomplices

    • Defined as those who cooperate in the execution of the offense by prior or simultaneous acts, but whose cooperation is not indispensable.
    • Example: A person who provides the tools for a burglary but does not participate directly in the crime.

  3. Accessories

    • Defined as those who participate subsequent to the commission of the crime, such as:
      a. Harboring, concealing, or assisting the principal or accomplice to escape.
      b. Destroying evidence of the crime.
      c. Profiting from the effects of the crime.
    • Exceptions: Close relatives (e.g., spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted siblings) are not criminally liable as accessories, except when:
      • The crime is treason, parricide, murder, or infanticide.
      • The accessory profits from the crime.

II. DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME

The degree of participation affects the criminal liability of an offender. The Revised Penal Code recognizes three classifications of participation:

  1. Principal

    • Highest degree of participation.
    • Penalties: They are subject to the full penalty prescribed by law for the crime.
    • Liability: They bear the full responsibility for the offense due to their direct or significant participation.

  2. Accomplice

    • Lesser degree of participation compared to a principal.
    • Penalties: One degree lower than the penalty for the principal.
    • Liability: Limited to acts performed, showing a lesser degree of criminal intent or participation.

  3. Accessory

    • Lowest degree of participation.
    • Penalties: Two degrees lower than the penalty for the principal.
    • Liability: Restricted to their role in assisting the principal or accomplice after the commission of the crime.

III. RELEVANT PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

  1. Conspiracy (Art. 8)

    • When two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to execute it, they are equally liable as principals, regardless of the specific acts performed.
    • Requisites:
      a. A common design to commit the offense.
      b. Participation in the execution of the plan.

  2. Complex Crimes (Art. 48)

    • When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing another, the offender is penalized for the more serious crime and imposed the maximum penalty.

  3. Collective or Individual Criminal Liability

    • Individual responsibility: Based on the specific acts of participation.
    • Collective responsibility: When conspiracy is proven, all conspirators are liable for the entire offense.

  4. Mitigating, Aggravating, and Exempting Circumstances

    • Affect the degree of participation and corresponding penalties.
    • Examples:
      • Mitigating: Minor participation, lack of intention to cause a grave wrong.
      • Aggravating: Abuse of public position, evident premeditation.
      • Exempting: Insanity, minority.

IV. RULES IN APPLYING PENALTIES

  1. Proportionality of Liability

    • Penalties are assigned based on the degree of participation.
    • Principals receive the full penalty.
    • Accomplices and accessories receive reduced penalties in accordance with Articles 50-57 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Special Circumstances

    • Crimes involving public officials (e.g., malversation, graft) carry specific provisions for liability.

  3. Prosecution’s Burden

    • To establish the degree of participation, the prosecution must prove the extent of the offender's acts and intent beyond reasonable doubt.

V. OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS

  1. Multiple Offenders (Habitual Delinquency)

    • If the offender has been convicted multiple times within a specific period for crimes of similar nature (e.g., theft, estafa), they may face additional penalties under the Habitual Delinquency Law.

  2. Collective Liability in Certain Crimes

    • Complex Crimes: Liability is shared when one crime is used as a necessary means for committing another (Art. 48).
    • Special Laws: Certain statutes (e.g., Anti-Terrorism Act) assign liability in broader terms, covering conspirators and indirect participants.

  3. Plea Bargaining

    • The level of participation may also determine the terms of plea bargaining, where a lesser charge may be negotiated based on the role of the accused.

VI. JURISPRUDENCE AND APPLICATION

  1. People v. Medina (G.R. No. 123215)

    • Clarified that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not constitute criminal liability unless it is proven that the person actively participated or conspired.

  2. People v. Lizada (G.R. No. 170043)

    • Explained that accomplices are liable only for acts within the scope of their cooperation, not for actions beyond what they facilitated.

  3. People v. Llaguno (G.R. No. 128296)

    • Highlighted that accessories are liable only when their post-crime actions meet the criteria of Art. 19.

This detailed breakdown ensures a comprehensive understanding of persons criminally liable and their degree of participation under Philippine law.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login