Jurisprudence on Conspiracy

1. G.R. No. 124513

October 17, 2001

ROBERTO ERQUIAGA, and GLENN OROSCO, petitioners,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch
24, Naga City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Conspiracy, as a rule, has to be established with the same quantum of proof
as the crime itself. It has to be shown as clearly as the commission of the
offense. It need not be by direct evidence, but may take the form of
circumstances which, if taken together, would conclusively show that the
accused came to an agreement to commit a crime and decided to carry it
out with their full cooperation and participation. It may be deduced from
the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of the
crime, which are indicative of a common design, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments.
2. G.R. No. 147782

June 25, 2008

JUANITA A. AQUINO, petitioner,

vs.
TERESITA B. PAISTE, respondent.
Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to
commit the crime. In criminal law, where the quantum of evidence required
is proof beyond reasonable doubt, direct proof is not essential to show
conspiracyit 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.
It is common design which is the essence of conspiracyconspirators may
act separately or together, in different manners but always leading to the
same unlawful result. The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be
adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by
looking at it as a wholeacts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in

fact, wholly innocent acts. Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of
all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the
extent or degree of their participation.
To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused
must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance
of the complicity. Mere presence when the transaction was made does not
necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence with the criminal design to
commit the crime of estafa. Even knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy because
the rule is that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient
proof of conspiracy.

3. G.R. No. 130742

July 18, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PRIMITIVA DIZON, LIBERTY MARTINEZ, and ANICETA
AQUINO, alias "Annie", accused.
ANICETA AQUINO, accused-appellant.
There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the offense, the acts
of two or more accused show that they were animated by the same criminal
purpose and were united in their execution or where the acts of the
malefactors indicate a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose and a
concerted action. To establish conspiracy, there must be proof that two or
more persons agreed to commit the crime. However, mere knowledge,
acquiescence or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a
conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime,
with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. In other
words, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the plan to commit the felony. And to be the basis for a
conviction, conspiracy must be proved in the same manner as any element
of the criminal act itself. The same degree of proof required to establish the
crime is necessary to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, that

is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission

of the offense itself.

4. G.R. No. 159280

May 18, 2004

AUGUSTO SIM, JR., petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and The PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Even in the absence of direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the
crime, conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before,
during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a
common design, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments. Conspiracy is deemed implied when the malefactors have a
common purpose and were united in its execution. Spontaneous agreement
or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission
of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility.

5. G.R. No. 111399 September 27, 1996

ODON PECHO, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
It is, however, settled that the same degree of proof required for
establishing the crime is likewise required to support a finding or
conspiracy. In other words conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and
as convincingly as the commission of the offense itself in order to uphold
the fundamental principle that no one shall be found guilty of a crime
except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. 17
It is also essential for one to be a party to a conspiracy as to be liable for the
acts of the others that there be intentional participation in the transaction
with a view to the furtherance of the common design. 18 Except when he is

the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should

have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
execution of the crime planned to be committed. 19 The overt act may
consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself,
or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present
at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the
other co-conspirators. 20