Why Napoles can’t be state’s witness in pork case

The general public may better appreciate the liability of Janet Lim Napoles by knowing who the “principals” in a crime are under the Revised Penal Code (Republic Act No. 3815), particularly Article 17 thereof.

The code classifies principals into three categories, namely: (a) principal by direct participation—one who takes a direct part in the execution of the offense or criminal act; (b) principal by inducement—one who directly forces or induces others to commit the crime; and (c) principal by indispensable cooperation—one who cooperates in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

Thus far, viewed from what has been reported in newspapers and broadcast media, Napoles cannot be immune from suit nor be a state’s witness given the gravity of her participation in the commission of the offenses. Finger-pointing would not absolve nor qualify Napoles as state’s witness.

Also, for better understanding and to guide laymen from being confused, an “accomplice,” under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who is not a principal but cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act. Therefore, Napoles cannot be treated as a mere accomplice either.

—NORMAN M. VERZOSA,

Verzosa Gutierrez Nolasco

Montenegro & Associates,

3/F Integrated Professional Offices,

14 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City