STO. NIÑO COLLEGE OF ORMOC, INC.
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINOLOGY
CLJ 3 – Criminal Law (Book 1)
Instructor: RHAHEZZA N. MAIDIN
MODULE 4
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Proposal to Commit Felony
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.
Essence of Conspiracy
The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy for it may be deduced from the acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated
that there is a common purpose to commit the crime. It is not sufficient, however, that the attack be
joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness doés not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or
unity of action and purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. It is necessary
that the assailants be animated by and the same purpose. The Supreme Court held:
“To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution;
he need not even take part in every act xxx. 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.”
1
Even if the accused were present and agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the
crime, their mere presence does not make them parties to it, absent any active participation in the
furtherance of the common design or purpose. Likewise, where the only act attributable to the other
accused is an apparent readiness to provide assistance, but with no certainty as to its ripening into an
overt act, there is no conspiracy.
A conviction premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded facts not on mere inferences
and presumption. The Court repeats:
“Conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken lightly or accepted at every
turn. It is a legal concept that imputes culpability under specific circumstances. As such,
it must be established as clearly as any element of the crime. The quantum of evidence
to be satisfied is beyond reasonable doubt.
In the absence of conspiracy, accused-appellant is responsible only for the
consequences of his own acts. Conspiracy pre supposes unity of purpose and unity of
action towards the realization of an unlawful objective among the accused. Its existence
can be inferred from the individual acts of the accused, which if taken as a whole are in
fact related, and indicative of a concurrence of sentiment.”
Example:
In one case, conspiracy was manifested in the spontaneous and coordinated acts of the accused,
where two of them delivered the initial attack on R by stoning, while another struck him with a shovel
and the third held him so that the other two can simultaneously stab R. It was only when R laid helpless
on the ground and had lost consciousness that the accused hurriedly left the scene. This chain of events
leading to the commission of the crime adequately established a conspiracy among them.
While it is mandatory to prove it by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show
conspiracy - it may be deduced from the mode. method. and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest.
Elements of Conspiracy
The elements of conspiracy are the following:
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
3. The execution of the felony was decided upon.
Proof of Conspiracy
Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from
the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the
commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and
entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be
carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was
perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose
and design, concerted action, and community of interest.
2
Likewise, there is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the offense the appellants had
the same purpose and were united in its execution.
