Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, “You already know what I want,” and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (4%)
(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green?
(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow?
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals for the death of Mr. Green and injuries of Ms. Yellow, while Mr. Red incurs no criminal liability. Under Article 17 of the RPC, principals by direct participation take a direct
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is required to hold a person liable as a principal by inducement under Article 17(2) RPC?
Inducement requires direct, powerful words that serve as the determining cause of the offense.
Why is Mr. Red NOT criminally liable as a principal by inducement for the killing of Mr. Green?
Vague remarks lacking directness and moral ascendancy do not constitute criminal inducement under Article 17 RPC.
What is the criminal liability of Mr. White and Mr. Blue for killing Mr. Green and hurting Ms. Yellow?
Direct participants who execute the physical attack are liable as co-principals for all resulting crimes.
Which element is essential to establish conspiracy among co-accused under Article 8 of the RPC?
Choices available with full access.
Under Philippine penal law, how does a principal by direct participation differ from an accomplice?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Direct Participation
Under Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, principals by direct participation are those who take a direct part in the execution of the felony. Persons who actively perform the overt acts necessary to produce the unlawful result, such as directly attacking and killing a victim or inflicting physical injuries, act in concert as co-principals. When two or more individuals act with a common criminal design and directly execute the crime, both incur full criminal liability as principals by direct participation for all resulting offenses.
2. Principal by Inducement
Under Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, a principal by inducement is one who directly forces or induces another to commit a crime. To establish criminal liability by inducement, the words or acts must be direct, powerful, and the determining cause of the crime, uttered with the intention of procuring its commission. Furthermore, the inducer must exercise ascendancy or moral coercion over the executor. Vague, ambiguous, or casual remarks made without direct command or moral ascendancy do not constitute criminal inducement under penal law.
3. Criminal Conspiracy
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Express or implied agreement must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence at the scene or uttering ambiguous words without proof of a shared unlawful plan or mutual agreement does not establish conspiracy. Without proof of conspiracy or direct inducement, an individual who merely expresses anger cannot be held liable for crimes independently executed by others.