Robbery And Rape Liability

Liability of Co-Accused in Robbery in Band When Rape Occurs: This is where your "exception" scenario comes in, and it's a critical point for determining the liability of those who didn't directly commit the rape but were present. The Principle: In crimes committed by a band (meaning, by more than three armed malefactors), all members of the band are liable for any crime committed by one of them, provided that the crime was committed in connection with or in furtherance of the common design, or as a logical and necessary consequence of the original criminal plan. SIMPLIFY

Application to Rape During Robbery:  Even if the rape was not originally part of the plan to rob, if the other members of the band were present, saw the rape being committed, and made no effort to prevent it, or even implicitly assented to it by their inaction and continued participation in the robbery, they can be held equally liable for the rape.  Their inaction is interpreted as tacit approval or an acquiescence to the additional crime, thereby extending the "common design" to include the supervening felony. They are deemed to have adopted the criminal act of their co-accused as their own.  Unless there is clear proof that a co-accused dissociated himself/herself from the act, or actively attempted to prevent it, their presence and inaction during the rape will make them equally culpable. SIMPLIFY FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING

If a rape occurs during a robbery by a group, all members present can be held liable even if it wasn't planned. - Their silence or continued participation implies approval. - Only those who clearly tried to stop the act or distanced themselves aren't liable. LEGAL ENGLISH CONVERT

If a rape occurs during a robbery by a group, all members present can be held liable even if it wasn't planned. - Their silence or continued participation implies approval. - Only those who clearly tried to stop the act or distanced themselves aren't liable. TRANSLATE THIS TO LEGAL ENGLISH

o The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Carandang (G.R. No. L-*, August *, *) is indeed relevant to the broader discussion of conspiracy and common design in collective criminal liability. While this case, and others from that era, might have discussed the older rules on complex crimes (including robbery with rape), the fundamental principles regarding the liability of co-conspirators for unforeseen acts committed by one member in connection with the common design remain valid. SIMPLIFY FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING

o o Carandang generally supports the idea that once a conspiracy is established, the conspirators are liable for all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and even for crimes that logically flow from it, especially if they are present and do not disavow or prevent the supervening act. Subsequent rulings, while changing the "complex crime" status of robbery with rape, have largely maintained the strict standard for collective liability when such heinous acts occur during a joint criminal enterprise. SIMPLIFY

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY UNFORESEEN ACTS? DOES IT MEAN NOT PART OF THE PLAN? AM I CORRECT?

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLICITY?

Cases People vs Peralta and People vs Caballero These are common references in Philippine jurisprudence on conspiracy. People vs. Peralta: This case, and others like it, often emphasize that conspiracy need not be established by direct proof but may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, provided that such conduct shows a common design and community of interest. It reinforces the doctrine of implied conspiracy. People vs. Caballero:** Cases like this often deal with the concept of collective responsibility in conspiracy, affirming that if a conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all, making all conspirators equally liable as principals. They often delve into the specific overt acts that establish conspiratorial liability. SIMPLIFY

What is the extent of criminal liability of a conspirator? The extent of criminal liability of a conspirator is that they are all held equally liable as principals for the crime committed. This means: They face the same penalties as the direct perpetrator, unless there are modifying circumstances (e.g., age, mental state) applicable to an individual conspirator. Their liability is co-equal and **collective. What is the effect if the additional crime is committed other than agreed upon? What is their liability? People vs Japar (take note: logical and natural, and foreseeable consequences), Ex. To rob and in the process, the victim was killed. SIMPLIFY

*. Self-Defense (Art. *, Par. *) Interpretation: This allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an immediate and actual unlawful attack.* The defense must be proportional to the threat.* Requisites: *. Unlawful aggression: This is the most essential requisite.* It must be actual (ongoing) or imminent (about to happen). Mere threat or intimidating attitude is not enough. *. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it: The means used by the defender must be proportionate to the danger or the force of the attack.* This does not mean exact equality, but a reasonable correspondence. *. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself: The defender must not have intentionally provoked the aggressor in a manner that led to the attack.* SIMPLIFY