phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

XI.

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

Let me try, neither an alternative nor a suggested answer.

Yes, Ricky is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
A person is considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation when he cooperate in the execution of the offense by another act without which the crime would not have been accomplished.

XI.

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

Hi.....Just a thought......the list as shown by the vigilante group were already marked for liquidation by the vigilantes....Didn't Ricky even save 2 out of 5?....well, ok....he could have saved all.......but the instant case said that the 5 in the list were already marked for liquidation meaning pre-determined by the group ..Ricky just "pointed to the two policemen as honest"...but he did not say the 3 others are "ok go ahead and kill them"....thanks......

yep, and i dont think that amounts to a crime.

sabi ko hindi sya criminally liable, kasi wala namang misprision of murder

For the sake of discussion, let me offer a separate view.

It is noticeable from the facts that Ricky was the leader of the vigilante group. His opinion was sought by the commander, the murder carried out by the group according to his opinion, and the result reported to him. No one in his right mind would ever do such actions unless the parties belong to the same vigilante group.

While Ricky did not participate in the act either as principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation, nevertheless he cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts indicating concurrence with the principals in their criminal design. He is therefore liable as an accomplice to the crime of murder.

Hi.....a reaction to Mr. Manresa's view:

I was actually thinking that Ricky is just "one of us", a bar reviewee, being approached by the "commander of the vigilante group". He was shown a list and asked on the list presented thereon to him. He went over the list and pointed to 2 names of policemen which he knows as honest. Ricky did not give any command nor was it said that he belonged to the vigilante group.

My take also on the "report made to Ricky" was that "it was disclosed to him"....for reasons not stated therein.....but not as being a leader of the group.......

Parang pareho tayo Blimpi . Sabi ko had the vigilante group committed treason Ricky could have been liable for misprision of treason but since the offenders merely committed the crime of murder, the omission of Ricky to report the plan of the accused is not a crime. Sabi ko hindi naman crime ung ginawa niya

hahaha! o di ba? soshal! hehehehe.

takot ko nga baka i appear pilosopo sa examiner e.

alala ko ung friend ko, nung 2006 bar exams, there was this question about Dinky Soliman na she was arrested when she was walking along Baywalk i think while wearing some shirt na banned ata. the question was whether the arrest was legal.

for lack of something legal and logical to say, ang sagot niya, legal daw under the vagrancy provision kasi daw Dinky looks like a prostitute because of the green streaks on her hair.

he flunked. the examiner must've been a Dinky supporter

Don't you think there is conspiracy? Ricky and the leader of the group came to an agreement to liquidate the police when the leader presented the list to him. Ricky selected the policemen who will be killed and the success of the liquidation was reported to him. I believe that a conspirator may not be on the scene and still be liable. Anyway, as a bar candidate Ricky should know that what is being presented to him is a crime and he may be a part of the conspiracy. Opinion lang po!!!

XI.

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

My view:

Hi all...the presented case is "so open to subjections" such that we should really thrive only on what is presented (my opinion only) else put the subjections we respectively is right.

Ricky is just reviewing for the Bar Exams ( like us , hirap..ha ha), then he was shown a list by a commander of the vigilante group and was "further asked who among them is innocent"....Ricky merely "pointed" to two names in the list. Then later, the commander reported the liquidation to Ricky.

The case did not state that Ricky "conspired/plan and came to an agreement" with the commander. It did not say he was a part of the group; though obviously he knows them. His permission was not asked to liquidate the persons concerned. The names in the list was actually cut out already by the vigilante group for liquidation when they approached RickY
Nowhere in the problem is stated that Ricky advised the commander to go ahead and kill the other 3. Later, the commander "reported" to Ricky that the 3 were already liquidated. As to why they reported to Ricky, it is not stated.....Ricky is presented in the case as merely reviewing for the bar.....He may later be criminally liable only if he "harbors, conceals, etc., the group" which would subject him to other violative offenses......

Eto kasing si Ricky.....Hindi na lang nag-concentrate sa Bar Review...

XI.

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

My view:

Hi all...the presented case is "so open to subjections" such that we should really thrive only on what is presented (my opinion only) else put the subjections we respectively is right.

Ricky is just reviewing for the Bar Exams ( like us , hirap..ha ha), then he was shown a list by a commander of the vigilante group and was "further asked who among them is innocent"....Ricky merely "pointed" to two names in the list. Then later, the commander reported the liquidation to Ricky.

The case did not state that Ricky "conspired/plan and came to an agreement" with the commander. It did not say he was a part of the group; though obviously he knows them. His permission was not asked to liquidate the persons concerned. The names in the list was actually cut out already by the vigilante group for liquidation when they approached RickY
Nowhere in the problem is stated that Ricky advised the commander to go ahead and kill the other 3. Later, the commander "reported" to Ricky that the 3 were already liquidated. As to why they reported to Ricky, it is not stated.....Ricky is presented in the case as merely reviewing for the bar.....He may later be criminally liable only if he "harbors, conceals, etc., the group" which would subject him to other violative offenses......

Eto kasing si Ricky.....Hindi na lang nag-concentrate sa Bar Review...

Admittedly, the problem permits a couple of, or more, subjective interpretations. However, I concur with Sir Manresa. If we are to understand the case in its entirety, we could, undoubtedly, infer from the facts a conclusion pointing criminal liability to Ricky, which thus bolster the fact of his discreet connection with the vigilante group. This, I believe, was correctly pointed out by Sir Manresa above.