CRIM1- Atty.

Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

2. The he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, but does not
Readings on Articles 17 to 19: Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories
render him a principal by direct participation or by indispensable cooperation;
TITLE TWO: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES 3. That there be relation between acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person
charged as accomplice.
ART.16. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
GRAVE AND LESS GRAVE FELONIES: ART. 19. ACCESSORIES
1. Principals -Also accessory after the fact
2. Accomplices - An accessory must have knowledge of the commission of the crime & having knowledge he took part subsequent to its
3. Accessories commission.
LIGHT FELONIES:
1. Principals SPECIFIC ACTS OF ACCESSORIES (P-C-H)
2. Accomplices 1. By PROFITING themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime
Two parties in all crimes 2. By CONCEALING or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery
1. ACTIVE subject – the criminal 3. By HARBORING, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.
2. PASSIVE subject- the injured party
ART.17. PRINCIPALS ART.20 ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

KINDS OF PRINCIPALS SITUATIONS WHERE ACCESSORIES ARE NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE:

1. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION- personally takes part in the execution of the act constituting 1. When the felony committed is a light felony;
the crime 2. When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse or as ascendant, or descendant ….etc. unless
the accessory himself profited from the effects of the proceeds of the crime or assisted to profit.
REQUISITES:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; *See. PD No. 1612, the Anti-fencing Law of 1979
2. That they carried out their plan & personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end. PD 1829: Penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
2. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION- the principal by induction becomes liable only when the principal by direct **NOTE: The benefit of the above mentioned exception in Art. 20 of RPC does not apply in PD 1829.
participation committed the act induced.
TWO WAYS OF BECOMING A PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION:
1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime, by:
1.1. By using irresistible force CASES:
1.2. By causing uncontrollable fear 1. People v. Pelagio, 20 SCRA 153
2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime, by: 2. People v. Federico, 247 SCRA 246
2.1. By giving price, reward or promise 3. People v. Aguilos, G.R. 121828, 27 June 2003
2.2. By using words of command 4. US v. Indanan, 24 Phil 203
TWO WAYS OF DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT CRIME: 5. People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil 609
a. By giving price, reward or promise 6. People v. Montealegre, G.R. 67948, 31 May 1988
b. By using words of command 7. US v. Lim Buanco, 14 Phil 472
8. People v. Madali, 188 SCRA 69
3. PRINCIPALS BY INDESPENSABLE COOPERATION- those who cooperate in the execution of the offense 9. People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil 38
by another act w/o w/c the crime would not have been accomplished. 10. People v. Realon, 99 SCRA 422
11. People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632
*Cooperation- an assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered w/c can’t exist w/o previous cognizance of 12. People v. Watimar, G.R. Nos. 121651-52, 16 August 2000
the criminal act intended to be executed (Phil. Law Dictionary by Moreno) 13. Mendoza v. People, 234 SCRA 63
14. Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 598
ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES 15. Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63
- are those persons who, not being included in Art.17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by the 16. Tan v. People, 313 SCRA 220
previous or simultaneous acts. 17. People v. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19
REQUISITES: (C-P-R) 18. Vino v. People, 178 SCRA 626
1. That there be community of design; knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct 19. Presidential Decree 1612
participation, he concurs w/ latter in his purpose; 20. Presidential Decree 1829

By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 1 as of 10/02/2018

CRIM1- Atty. Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

CASE ARTICLE FACTS ISSUE RULING

1. PEOPLE V PELAGIO, 8, 294 Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo and Jose Guico... to death for the crime... In summary then, this Court finds appellant Oscar Caymo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
20 SCRA 153 [GR- L- of robbery with homicide WON, Appellant crime of robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating circumstances, all recited in the
16177, May 24, Conspiracy Pancho Pelagio... information and proven at the trial, of nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle without any
197] Jose Guico, an ex-convict, and Evelyn Villanueva lived in common law he should only be compensating mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, appellant Pancho Pelagio is hereby
relationship convicted for determined to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5
simple robbery and of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism,
Pancho Pelagio not for robbery having been at the time of the trial, as recited in the information and proven at the trial, previously
with homicide. convicted for robbery. There is no mitigating circumstance appreciable in his favor. For both
Pancho appellants, therefore, the penalties prescribed by law should be imposed in their maximum period,
Appellant Jose although appellant Pancho Pelagio is still qualified to avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate
Pelagio came to see the spouses Guico and Villanueva. Pelagio's wife had Guico... he cannot Sentence Law. For the reasons given above, appellant Jose Guico should be, as he is hereby
just delivered a child and he wanted to borrow money for the hospital justly be convicted acquitted.
expenses.
for the crime
charged.
Armando Manalang, taking advantage of the said visit, informed

Pancho Pelagio of a robbery he, Manalang, was planning with some other
friends who later were revealed by Manalang to be Jose Guico, Oscar
Caymo and Arcadio

Balmeo.

Jose Guico's participation in the first meeting is unclear... arch 24, 1955,
Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo, Armando Manalang and Arcadio Balmeo
set out for the execution of their... plan

Aling Nena's residence

Caymo ordered Manalang to hail and hold a taxi which the latter... did

At the gate, however, they failed to find Pancho Pelagio.

they found Armando Manalang waiting for them in a taxi.

Caymo and Balmeo then rode on it.

When the stranger was very near the taxi already,... Manalang instructed
Caymo to shoot at the man as the latter was a police officer.

Patrolman Francisco Trinidad of the Pasay Police Department, fell dead.

aymo and Balmeo proceeded to a house in Blumentritt where they met

Pancho Pelagio... he latter... explained that he had to scamper away
before Caymo and Balmeo had gone down because he, Pelagio, saw
someone slip out of the house apparently to summon the police.

2. PEOPLE V FEDERICO, The accused-appellant was charged with murder
247 SCRA 246
Conspiracy Rogelio Fernando, a tricycle driver, and Francisco Mediona, a metro aide,
G.R. No. 99840 August 14, had an altercation. They appeared to have settled their differences
1995 before the Barangay Chairman.However, a month later, Francisco along
with his cousins accused-appellant Federico Mediona and Ruben
Mediona, attacked Fernando in a bakery. Francisco, armed with a knife,
proceeded towards the bakery where Rogelio Fernando was. Ruben
By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com
(1) Is the accused- 1) Yes. The actions of the accused-appellant in arming himself with a sling and darts which he aimed
appellant a co- towards the bakery where Fernando and the others were and in blocking the path of Fernando
conspirator in when the latter tried to run away from Francisco establish his concurrence in the criminal purpose
the frustrated of Francisco, the actual assailant of Fernando.(2) No. The prosecution only established conspiracy
murder of to kill only as to Fernando, and not Escala. Conspiracy, just like the crime itself, must be established
Fernando? by proof beyond reasonable doubt. And the rule has always been that co-conspirators are liable
only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for other acts done outside the contemplation of the
co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only
2 as of 10/02/2018
CRIM1- Atty. Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES
Mediona and appellant RodolfoFederico, who both stayed behind, pulled (2) Is accused- the actual perpetrators are liable. In such a case, the dictum that the act of one is the act of all does
out from their pockets slings with darts and aimed the same towards the appellant Federico not hold true anymore. No reason, motive, or intent on the part of Francisco was shown or proved
bakery, where Rogelio Fernando's group was. Francisco Mediona a co-conspirator in why he would stab Escala. And there is no convincing evidence that the killing of Escala was part of
suddenly stabbed Rogelio Fernando on the left side of the body. the killing of the conspiracy to kill Rogelio Fernando. Neither is there any indication that the accused-appellant
Fernando ran away but his path was blocked by Ruben Mediona and Escala? was aware that Francisco would attack Escala.
appellant, who aimed their slings and darts at him. Fernando survived as
he was timely brought to the hospital after escaping the group.
Meanwhile, immediately after he stabbed Rogelio Fernando, Francisco
Mediona instantly turned to Pastor Escala, a companion of Fernando in
the bakery, and stabbed him.

3. PEOPLE V AGUILOS, 4, 18 Subject: Minor inconsistencies in the testimony does not impair but even ISSUE Minor inconsistencies in the testimony does not impair but even strengthens witness credibility
G.R. 121828, 27 June strengthens witness credibility; Conspiracy may exist even if an offender : WON Pilola is
2003 does not know the identities of the other offenders, and even though he guilty of murder 1. Pilola avers that Elisa is not a credible witness as she contradicted herself when she testified on
is not aware of all the details of the plan or was not in on the scheme RULING direct examination that Ronnie struck the head of the victim with a hollow block. However, on
[G.R. No. 121828. June from the beginning; If conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are : Yes. Pilola is cross-examination, she stated that it was Edmar who struck the victim.
27, 2003] liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their GUILTY of murder.
participation; Absent conspiracy, offenders may be liable as principals by • 2. The identity of the person who hit the victim with a hollow block is of de minimis importance.
direct participation under Art 4, RPC; Liability as an accomplice; The victim died because of multiple wounds. The appellant is charged with murder for the killing of
Conspiracy exists, Pilola not merely an accomplice but is a principal by The identity of the the victim with a knife, in conspiracy with the other accused. On this point, Elisa has been
direct participation; Defense of alibi not proven; Flight is evidence of person who hit the consistent in her testimony that Pilola was one of the men who stabbed the victim, the others
guilt; Crime committed is Murder qualified by treachery (aggravating victim with a being Ronnie and Odilon.
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery); hollow block is of
Civil Liabilities de minimis 3. Moreover, the perceived inconsistency in Elisa's account of events is a minor and collateral detail
importance. The that does not affect the substance of her testimony, as it even serves to strengthen rather than
Facts: perceived destroy her credibility.
inconsistency in
Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba y Abregon and appellant Rene Gayot Pilola Elisa's account of 4. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of a witness to testify falsely
were charged, together with one Ronnie Diamante , with the murder of events is a minor against the accused or to falsely implicate the latter in the commission of the crime, as in the case
Joselito Capa y Rulloda. The information charged the accused of hacking and collateral detail at bar, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and that the testimony is
and stabbing the victim while armed with double-bladed knives and a that does not affect worthy of full faith and credence.
bolo, the accused acting in conspiracy and with treachery and taking the substance of
advantage of superior strength. her testimony, as it 5. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to Elisa's testimony. Case law has it that
even served to the trial court's calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the
Edmar Aguilos remains at large. Odilon Lagliba was convicted in the lower strengthen rather credibility of witnesses and the probative weight thereof is given high respect, if not conclusive
court and the decision has become final and executory. Ronnie Diamante than destroy her effect, by the appellate court.
has died. The lone appellant is Rene Gayot Pilola who pleaded not guilty credibility. No
to the charge. showing of any Conspiracy may exist even if an offender does not know the identities of the other offenders, and
improper motive even though he is not aware of all the details of the plan or was not in on the scheme from the
The fatal incident occurred at around 11:30 p.m at the store of one Elisa on the part of a beginning
Rolan where the victim Joselito and Julian Azul, Jr. were drinking beer. witness to testify
Two of the accused, Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba, arrived at the falsely against the 6. There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit
store and were invited by Joselito and Julian to join in the drinking spree. accused or to it. Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proved separately from and with the
An altercation between Edmar and Julian ensued. Elisa pacified the falsely implicate the same quantum of proof as the crime itself.
protagonists and advised them to go home. Joselito and Julian were latter in the
about to leave when Edmar and Odilon blocked their way. Edmar took off commission of the 7. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
his eyeglasses and punched Julian in the face. Edmar and Julian ignored crime - the essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
her and traded fist blows until they reached Aling Sotera's store at the testimony is worthy before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
end of the street. Joselito tried to placate the protagonists to no avail. of full faith and purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by
Joselito's intervention apparently did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled credence their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
out his knife with his right hand and stepped down from his perch. He combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and
placed his left arm around Joselito's neck, and stabbed the latter. Ronnie cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
and the appellant Pilola, who were across the street, saw their gangmate

By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 3 as of 10/02/2018

CRIM1- Atty. Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES
Odilon stabbing the victim and decided to join the fray. They pulled out
their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed Joselito. Joselito fell in the
canal. Odilon and the Pilola fled, while Ronnie went after Julian and tried
to stab him. Julian ran and when he noticed that Ronnie was no longer
running after him, Julian stopped and looked back. He saw Ronnie pick up
a piece of hollow block and with it bashed Joselito's head. Not content,
Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck Joselito once more.
Ronnie then fled from the scene. Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to
Joselito's house and informed his wife and brother of the incident.
Appellant Pilola denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of
alibi. He claimed that at 11pm, he was in the house of his cousin, Julian.
He heard a commotion coming from outside and Julian rushed out of the
house to find out what was going on. Pilola remained inside the house
because he was suffering from ulcer. The following morning, he learned
from their neighbor, Elisa Rolan, that Joselito had been stabbed to death.
The trial court found Pilola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder
of Joselito and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Hence, the present appeal.
On main, Pilola argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he
conspired with Ronnie and Odilon in stabbing the victim to death. He
contends that for one to be a conspirator, his participation in the criminal
resolution of another must either precede or be concurrent with the
criminal acts. He asserts that even if it were true that he was present at
the situs criminis and that he stabbed the victim, it was Odilon who had
already decided, and in fact fatally stabbed the victim. He could not have
conspired with Odilon as the incident was only a chance encounter
between the victim, the appellant and his co-accused. In the absence of a
conspiracy, the appellant cannot be held liable as a principal by direct
participation. Elisa could not categorically and positively assert as to what
part of the victim's body was hit by whom, and how many times the
victim was stabbed by the appellant. He asserts that he is merely an
accomplice and not a principal by direct participation.
By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com
8. There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not know the identities of the other
offenders, and even though he is not aware of all the details of the plan of operation or was not in
on the scheme from the beginning. One need only to knowingly contribute his efforts in
furtherance of it. One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal
designs of his co-conspirators.
9. Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence. From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the
offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. As a rule, the
concurrence of wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, may be deduced from the evidence of
facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the parties cooperated and labored to
the same end
If conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner
and extent of their participation
10. If conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation of law, the act of one would be the
act of all. Each of the conspirators is the agent of all the others.
11. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy.
12. The mere presence of an accused at the situs of the crime will not suffice; mere knowledge,
acquiescence or approval of the act without cooperation or agreement to cooperate on the part of
the accused is not enough to make him a party to a conspiracy. There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Liability as an accomplice
15. Absent conspiracy between two or more offenders, they may be guilty of homicide or murder
for the death of the victim, one as a principal by direct participation, and the other as an
accomplice, under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code:
Art. 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.
16. To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur:
(a) the community of criminal design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
(b) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission
of the crime.
17. Accomplices come to know about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation
after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does the
accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime
should be committed; they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and
cooperate in its accomplishment. However, where one cooperates in the commission of the crime
by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct
participation, and not merely an accomplice.
4 as of 10/02/2018
CRIM1- Atty. Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES
4. US V INDANAN, 24 Phil 13 (2) An appeal from a judgment convicting the appellant of the crime of WON Indanan is YES. Art13(2), of the Penal Code declares those to be principals in a crime "who directly force or
203 murder and sentencing him to be hanged. guilty of murder by induce others to commit it."
inducement?
G.R. No. L- Panglima Indanan, accused is the headman of Parang. Commenting upon this paragraph, Viada says:
8187 January 29,
1913 On Mar. 24, 1912, Indanan ordered the killing of Sariol to his men They force another to commit a crime who physically by actual force or grave fear, for example,
Akiran,Kalyakan & Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetery asserting that Indanan with a pistol in hand or by any other threatening means, oblige another to commit the crime. In our
had an order to that effect from the governor. commentary on par. 9 of A8 (page 28),we have already said that he who suffers violence acts w/o
will & against his will, is no more than an instrument, & therefore is guilty of no wrong. The real
The CFI found Indanan guilty of the crime of murder & sentencing him to culprits in such case, the only guilty persons, are those who use the violence, those who force the
be hanged other to commit the crime.

One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command, or for a consideration, or by any
other similar act w/c constitutes the real & moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for the
purpose of inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for that purpose. We’ve already seen in our
commentary on par. 12 of A8 that the 1 who physically commits the crime may escape criminal
responsibility by showing that he acted w/ due obedience to an order; in such case the criminal
responsibility falls entirely upon the 1 who orders, i.e., upon him who by his commands has directly
induced the other to commit the act. But in case the obedience of the inferior isn’t due to the
superior & thus not necessary, & doesn’t, thus, exempt him from criminal responsibility as the
physical author of the
crime,he who thus, by his command, directly induced him to the criminal act isconsidered by the
law also as principal in the crime.

The pacto by virtue of w/c 1 purchases for a consideration the hand w/commits the crime makes
him who gives, promises, or offers the consideration the principal in the crime by direct
inducement, because w/o such offer or promise the criminal act would never have been
committed. But this doesn’t mean that the1 who actually commits the crime by reason of such
promise, remuneration
orreward is exempted from criminal responsibility; on the contrary, suchcircumstance constitutes
an aggravation of his crime.

We have heretofore said that in addition to the precepto & the pactothere are similar means by
w/c another may be induced to commit a crime w/c also make the 1 who offers the inducement the
principal in the crime by virtue of the provisions of A13(2). But it must be borne in mind that these
acts of inducement do not consist in simple advice or counsel given before the act is committed, or
in simple words uttered at the time the act was committed. Such advice & such words constitute
undoubtedly an evil act, an inducement condemned by the moral law; but in order that, under the
provisions of the Code, such act can be considered direct inducement, it is necessary that such
advice or such words have a great dominance & great influence over the person who acts; it is
necessary that they beas direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as
violence itself.

5. PEOPLE V KICHI OMINE, 17 Nature: Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement toEduardo Autor, it would be i
61 Phil 609 Appeal from a judgment of CFI Davao. nsufficient to make him a principal by induction. Eduardo Autor though working under the direction
FACTS of Omine was still being paid by Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that
G.R. No. L-42476 : Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI finding them guilty of frust inducement
July 24, 1935 rated homicide, w/ the AC that advantage was taken of their superior be made directly w/ the
strength,& sentencing them each to suffer an IS from 6 yrs of prision intentionof procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be thedetermining
correccional to 12 yrs of prision mayor. Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis cause of the commission of the crime. It must be precede the act induced and must be so
Ladion and Agapito Cortesano were working under co-defendant Kiichi influential in producing the criminal act that w/o it the act
Omine, the overseer or manager of the hemp plantation owned by Angel wouldn’t have been performed. Moreover, as words of direct inducement, it is essential that such
Pulido. The 4 defendants lived together in a house on the advice or words have great dominance and great influence over the person who acts, that they be
plantation. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido permission to open a new as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself. Hence, the 3

By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 5 as of 10/02/2018

CRIM1- Atty. Evangelista ARTICLES 17 to 19: PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES
road through the plantation.Acdg to Omine, Pulido did give his
permission that’s why he began working on thenew road. But acdg to
Pulido, he refused to grant this request because there wasalready an
unfinished road. As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others were returning
home from a cockpit,
theynoticed that a considerable number of hemp plants were destroyed
by theconstruction of the new road. Angered by this, they went to the
defendants’ house and there happened a violent altercation resulting to
the owner Pulido’s death from a wound by a bolo struck in his breast.
By: A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com
co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Angel Pulido. Judging
from the nature of the wound, w/c was abt 11 inches in length, it is probable that it was caused by
the point of the bolo on a downward stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably given
during a commotion and w/o being aimed at any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor
struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the offended
party’s life.
Wherefore, Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of
prision correccional, since the offended party was incapacitated for
theperformance of his usual work for a period of more than 90 days, and
not of frustrated homicide. The rest of the co-defendants are acquitted.
6 as of 10/02/2018