SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY
(2010-2013)
People of the
Philippines vs. Nonoy Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010. When a
homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those
who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless
there is proof that there was an endeavour to prevent the killing. In this
case, the records are bereft of any evidence to prove, or even remotely
suggest, that appellant attempted to prevent the killing. Therefore, the basic principle in conspiracy
that the “act of one is the act of all” applies in this case.
People of the
Philippines vs. Nonoy Ebet,G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010. To be a
conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need
not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be
performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and
different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact,
constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal
objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. The precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals. To exempt
himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act
to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and
prevent the commission thereof.
Michael San Juan y Cruz v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011. Proof. Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof
required to establish the crime — proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere
presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof
of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a
party to a conspiracy.
People of the
Philippines v. Dima Montanir, Ronald Norva and Eduardo Chua, G.R. No. 187534,
April 4, 2011. Liability of conspirators.
When conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is
collective, not individual. This renders all of them equally liable regardless
of the extent of their respective participations, the act of one being deemed
to be the act of the other or the others, in the commission of the felony.
People of the
Philippines v. Dima Montanir, Ronald Norva and Eduardo Chua, G.R. No. 187534,
April 4, 2011. Liability of conspirators.
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which
follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable
and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the
original design. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the
accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral
acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.
Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by
purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a
prohibited result, they are, in contemplation of law, chargeable with intending
that result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another
conspirator unless such act differs radically and substantively from that which
they intended to commit.
Michael San Juan y
Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011.
Proof. Conspiracy
requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime — proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere presence at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate
is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.
People of the
Philippines v. Wenceslao Nelmida, et al, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012. Evidence.
Conspiracy existed here as may be inferred from the concerted actions of the
appellants and their co-accused, namely: (1) appellants and their co-accused
brought Samuel to a waiting shed located on the left side of the road where the
yellow pick-up service vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group would
pass; (2) appellants and their co-accused, thereafter, assembled themselves on
both sides of the road and surreptitiously waited for the aforesaid yellow
pick-up service vehicle; (3) the moment the yellow pick-up service vehicle
passed by the waiting shed, appellants and their co-accused opened fire and
rained bullets thereon resulting in the killing and wounding of the victims;
(4) immediately, appellants and their co-accused ran towards the house of
Samuel’s aunt to get their bags and other stuff; (5) Samuel followed appellants
and their co-accused; and (6) appellants and their co-accused fled. Conspiracy
is very much evident from the afore-enumerated actuations of the appellants and
their co-accused. They were synchronized in their approach to riddle with
bullets the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. They were
motivated by a single criminal impulse ─ to kill the victims. Conspiracy is
implied when the accused persons had a common purpose and were united in its
execution.
People of the
Philippines v. Rolly Angelio, G.R. No. 197540, February 27, 2012.
The inconsistencies pointed out are inconsequential given
the presence of conspiracy between the appellant and Olaso in killing the
victim. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The presence of
conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances where all the accused acted
in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. Conspiracy is
sufficiently established when the concerted acts show the same purpose or
common design and are united in its execution.
Moreover, when there is conspiracy, it is not important who delivered
the fatal blow since the act of one is considered the act of all. The overt
acts of the appellant and Olaso showing their conspiracy to kill the victim
are: (1) the appellant and Olaso flagged down the tricycle being driven by the
victim; (2) the appellant seated himself at the back of the driver’s seat while
Olaso went inside the tricycle; (3) the appellant and Olaso simultaneously
assaulted the victim – the appellant embracing the victim while Olaso stabbed
him; and (4) both men immediately fled the scene after the stabbing. The above circumstances plainly show the
common design and the unity of purpose between the appellant and Olaso in
executing their plan to kill the victim.
People of the Philippines v. Simpresueta M. Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919,
January 9, 2013. Appellant questions the lower courts’ finding of
conspiracy between her and co-accused. She claims that she merely accompanied
Espiritu in going to the RFC Food Court and had nothing to do with the
transaction. As a matter of fact, the shabu was not even found in or recovered
from her possession. It just so happened that she was in the area during the
delivery of the drugs. The argument did not persuade the Supreme Court. There
is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the
felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Conspiracy may be proved by
direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the
alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to
achieve a common design or purpose. The existence of conspiracy in this case
was clearly established not only by the prosecution’s evidence but also by
appellant’s very own testimony. As can be gleaned from appellant’s testimony as
well as from the testimony of Carla as to what transpired during the actual
buy-bust operation, appellant acted in common concert with her co-accused in
the illegal sale of shabu. She cannot therefore isolate her act of merely
accompanying Espiritu to the RFC Food Court or carrying the shabu since in
conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. To be a conspirator, one need not
participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in
the execution of the conspiracy.
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/conspiracy/
