You are on page 1of 4

Article 18 - Accomplices Accomplices are the persons who, not being included

in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or

simultaneous acts.
uasi-collective criminal responsibility some of the offenders in the crime are
principals and the others are accomplices.
!he participation of an accomplice presupposes the commission of the crime by
the principal by direct participation the principal element of every punishable
complicity consists in the concurrence of the will of the accomplice w/ the will of the
author of the crime, and the accomplice cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts in
the execution of the offense by the principal.
"hen there is doubt as to whether the accused acted as principal or accomplice,
accused should be held liable only as accomplice mere presence at the scene of
the incident, knowledge of the plan are not sufficient grounds to hold a person as
"hen the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an accomplice
A person who assists one who commits the crime of arson who knows the latters
purpose, but whose participation in the arson is not disclosed, may not be considered as
a principal, because his acts are neither direct nor absolutely necessary for the
commission of the offense.
An accomplice does not have previous agreement or understanding or is not in
conspiracy with the principal by direct participation but he participates to a certain
point in the common criminal design.
Accomplice #$ %onspirator

Accomplice %onspirator
B!" #now and agree the criminal design
#now about it after the principals have
reached the decision, only then do they
agree to cooperate in its execution
#now the criminal intention bec. they
themselves have decided upon such
course of action
$erely concur in it, they assent to the plan
and cooperate
%ecides that a crime should be committed
$erely instruments who perform acts not
essential to the perpetration of the offense
Authors of a crime
&ay a co-conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only'
- if the overt acts of the accused, although done w/ knowledge of the criminal
intent of his co&accused was not indispensable to the homicidal assault, the
accused should be held liable only as an accomplice in the killing of the victim
(e)uisites of an accomplice
'. !here be community of design( that is knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs w/ the latter in his purpose
). "e cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts
w/ the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way
*. !hat there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice
+irst re,uisite- !he cooperation w/c the law punishes is the assistance w/c is knowingly
or intentionally given and w/c is not possible w/o previous knowledge of the criminal
.x- %river of a taxicab who knowing that his co&accused were going to make a
hold up, permitted them to use the cab driven by him in going to a store where his said
co&accused staged the hold up and waited for them until after the hold&up is an
How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal?
'. /hen the principal informs or tells the accomplice of the formers criminal
). /hen the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal
Concurrence w/ the criminal purpose of another may make one a co-principal.
- .ven if only one of the offenders originated the criminal design and the other
merely concurred w/ him in his criminal purpose, but before the actual
commission of the crime both agreed and decided to commit it, the other is not
merely an accomplice. "e is also a principal, because having agreed and
decided to commit a felony w/ another he becomes a co&conspirator.
!he accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or ta*e part in the execution of the
%ommunity of design
- !he accused facilitated the commission of the crime by providing shelter as the
venue thereof. "is presence throughout the commission of the heinous offense,
w/o him doing anything to prevent the malefactors or help the victim. Although
there was no direct participation, accused is guilty as accomplice.
!he community of design need not be to commit the crime actually committed. +t
is sufficient if there was a common purpose to commit a particular crime and that
the crime actually committed was a natural or probable conse)uence of the
intended crime.
-/here the accomplices consent to aid in the commission of the crime, they will be
responsible as such as accomplices for the result of the crime
"hen the owner of the gun *new that it would be used to *ill a particular person,
and the principal used it to *ill another person, the owner of the gun is not an
accomplice as to *illing the other person.

0econd re,uisite- !he accomplice cooperates w/ the principal by direct participation. But
the cooperation of an accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.
.xamples of cooperation by accomplice-
a. By previous acts lending a dagger or pistol to the murderer, knowing the latters
criminal purpose 1rape, medicine given to the accused2
b. By simultaneous acts the defendant who held one of the hands of the victim
and tried to take away the latters revolver, while his co&defendant was attacking
him, is an accomplice for he cooperated in the execution of the crime by
simultaneous acts w/o any previous agreement with his co&defendant.
!he cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a conspiracy.
"hen the acts of the accused are not indispensable in the *illing, they are merely
accomplices one who acted as a look out and also assisted in taking the stolen
articles in the crime of robbery w/ homicide, absent a conspiracy
!he accomplice merely supplies the principal w, material or moral aid w,o
conspiracy w, the latter where the evidence does not prove that appellant conspired
with the malefactors, he cannot be considered principal. "owever, in going with them,
and staying outside of the hose while they went inside to rob the store and kill the victim,
the appellant effectively supplied the criminals w/ material and moral aid.
!he wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against person should not have
caused the death of the victim if he inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal
by direct participation.
!he ff rules are indicated-
'. !he one who had the original criminal design is the person who committed the
resulting crime.
). !he accomplice, after concurring in the criminal purpose of the principal,
cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts the principal had already attacked
the victim before the accomplice struck the said victim.
*. !he accomplice in crimes against persons does not inflict the more or most
serious wounds.
-roblem. 3edro gave a fist blow on the face of 4uan. 0eeing what 3edro had done to
4uan, 4ose stabbed 4uan to death. 5s 4ose an accomplice6 /0. !he one who had the
original criminal design was 4ose, the wound inflicted by 4ose being the more serious.
3edro could not have concurred in the criminal purpose of 4ose, because 3edro was the
first to strike 4uan and 3edro did nothing more after 4ose stabbed 3edro.
!he criminal responsibility of 3edro and 4ose will be individual, that is, each is
responsible for the act actually performed by him. B7! if 4ose stabbed 4uan first, and as
4uan was in a dying condition, 3edro gave a first blow on 4uans face then 3edro is an
(eason- /hen 3edro gave a fist blow on the face of 4uan after the latter had been
mortally wounded by 4ose, it shows that 3edro concurred in the criminal purpose of
1eing present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will
ma*e a person responsible only as accomplice in the crime committed giving aid
or encouragement, either morally or materially, in the commission of the crime, mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not ma*e one an accomplice.
!he moral aid may be through advice, encouragement or agreement
!hird re,uisite- !here must be a relation between the criminal act of the principal and the
act of the one charged as accomplice it is not enough that a person entertains an
identical criminal design as that of the principal. !here must be a relation between the
criminal act of the principal by direct participation and that of the person charged as
An accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that w,c the principal
1. 3edro attacked 4uan with treachery, the attack being sudden and unexpected.
/hen 4uan was mortally wounded, 8aul, father of 3edro appeared and placed
himself upon 4uans abdomen, and held his hands. 9ater, Antonio also appeared
and held both knees of 4uan, 8aul and Antonio made it possible for 3edro to
search the body of 4uan for the latters revolver. 5t was not shown that 8aul and
Antonio knew of the manner 3edro attacked 4uan. /hat the knew was that
3edro had unlawfully attacked and wounded 4uan. 5t was held that 3edro was
guilty of murder ,ualified by treachery and 8aul and Antonio were guilty as
accomplices in the crime of homicide.
Accomplice #$ -rincipal in 2eneral
- An accomplice is one who does not take a direct part in the commission of the
act, who does not induce or force others to commit it, who does not cooperate in
the commission of the crime by another act w/c it would not have been
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous actions.
Accomplice #$ -rincipal by cooperation
- /here the accused struck the deceased on the forehead w/ a piece of wood,
rendering the latter unconscious, thereby facilitating the subse,uent slaying of
the deceased by the other accused, the former must be deemed responsible as
an accomplice in the killing. 1$70! "A:. #;/9.%+. + !". 5;!.;!5;
+ !". A::70.%2
Accomplice #$. principal by direct participation
- !he person who entertains the owner of a house while robbers are assaulting it,
so that he will not return thereto until after the robbery has been consummated, is
an accomplice in the rime, inasmuch as he cooperated therein by simultaneous
act, although not an indispensable one for its accomplishment. (as long as it was
entertained at some distance from the place where robbery was committed, if
under the house then he is a principal by direct participation
'. 5n both, there is community of criminal design
). As to the acts performed, there is no clear&cut distinction between the acts of the
accomplice and those of the principal by direct participation. !hat is why, in case
of doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of lesser responsibility, that is that of mere
*. Between or among principals liable for the same offense, there must be
conspiracy( but bet. the principals and the accomplices, there 5s no conspiracy.