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 a penalty
                         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)
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or
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

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 liable.

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 responsibility.


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 conspirators;
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.

1997 Bar Examination Question
1998 Bar Examination Question
1994 Bar Examination Question
2003 Bar Examination Question
2003 Bar Examination Question (Implied Conspiracy)