Under the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.

How Conspiracies are Proved
Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purposes
to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by
their acts the same object, one performing one part and another
performing part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to
the attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the
conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that

NOTE: This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or statements
and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where
the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant. Hence, the requirement that the
conspiracy must preliminary be proved by evidence other than the
conspirator’s admission applies only to extra-judicial, but not to
judicial, admissions.

1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde – conspiracy must
   be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the court.
2. The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy –
   after, the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one
   conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the
   other conspirators.
3. The admission related to the conspiracy itself - should relate
   to the common object.

Rule on admission by conspirator:
1. The act or declaration of a conspirator
2. Relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
3. May be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
4. After the conspiracy
   a. is shown by evidence
   b. other than such act or declaration.

Requisites for application of the admission by conspirator:
1. The conspiracy must be established by independent evidence.
2. The statement refers to the purpose or object of the conspiracy.
3. The statement must be made during the existence of the conspiracy.
   (People vs. Dagundong, L-10398, June 30, 1960)

   This refers to extra-judicial acts and declarations of a
   conspirator and not to his testimony as a witness in the trial.
   (People vs. Atencio, L-222518, Jan. 17, 1968)

These are not required in admissions during the trial as the
co-accused can cross-examine the declarant and besides these are
admissions after the conspiracy has ended.

Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy.

The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused or from
the confessions of the accused or by prima facie proof thereof.

The concurrence of minds essential to conspiracy may be inferred
where the parties are apparently pursuing the same object whether
acting separately or together by common or different means leading
to the same lawful result, and a common purpose is inferable from
concerted action converging to a definite objective and whether or
not the parties meet, or confer and formulate their plans.

Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of the offense itself.

A person charged with conspiracy is presumed to be innocent, and
the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt.

The rule of evidence with regard to conspiracy is founded on the
principle which apply to agencies and partnerships, the association
should be bound by the acts of one of its members in carrying out
the design.

Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy,
the extra-judicial confession of an accused cannot be used against
his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both
extra-judicial confessions and admissions.

General Rule:
Extra judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy
has terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against
the co-conspirator.

1. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly
   agreed therein, as there would be a tacit admission under
   Section 32.
2. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the
   individual extra-judicial confessions made by the co-conspirators
   after their apprehension (interlocking confessions)
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness.
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s
   participation in the offense.

If made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the
object of the conspiracy has been either attained of finally defeated,
the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it.

In order that the extra-judicial statements of a co-accused may be
taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it
is necessary that the statements are made by several accused, the
same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been
no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements.

If this testimony is introduced to prove the truth of B’s statement,
it will be hearsay, but it will fall within the co-conspirator
exception to hearsay rule. This is because the statement was:
1. Made by a co-conspirator
2. Made during the course of the conspiracy
3. Made in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy