1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
2. For the commission of a felony
3. And they decide to commit it
Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a crime in itself
Ex: conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason,
sedition, coup d’ etat
2. Merely as a means to commit a crime
a. a prior and express agreement
b. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is
indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal objective
Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable since
it is merely a preparatory act.
Exception: when the law specifically provides for
Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition,
coup d’ etat
General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which
is not part of the intended crime.
Exception to the exception: When the act
constitutes an indivisible offense.
People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)
OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at
the time of the commission of the crime, or
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators
by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. And proposes its execution to some other person or persons
People vs. Nierra
If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of
the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such co-conspirator
should be punished as an accomplice only.
The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved,
the participants are punished as principals. This notion is
no longer absolute. The reason given is that penal laws
always favor a milder form of responsibility upon and offender.
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present
during the planning. The taxi driver agreed for the use of
his cab but said, “I will bring you there, and after
committing the robbery I will return later.” The taxi driver
brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed.
After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators
back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that
the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His
cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could
have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really
stay during the commission of the robbery. At most,
what he only extended was his cooperation.
A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known
to each other. When several persons who do not know each
other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the
act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by
any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences.
Do not think that participants are always known to each other.
The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not
criminally liable. As pointed out earlier, desistance is true
only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only
a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage..
A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was
maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him and
pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband
and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted
for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife ran away.
The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court
said that there was desistance so she is not criminally
Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they
acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention,
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider
the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act
of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal
A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years.
On several occasions, they even visited the lady on intervening
hours. Because of this, A, B and C became hostile with one another.
One day, D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation.
Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C
learned about this, they all stood up to leave the house of
the young lady feeling disappointed. When A looked back at the
young lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that instance,
A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that
conspiracy was present
People v. Pangilinan,
Implied Conspiracy Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose, community
of interest and in the mode and manner of commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
a. Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered
b. Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the
commission of the crime will be considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the
crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Siton vs. CA,
The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free
for all. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when
a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.