Dear PAO,

Can a bystander be held liable as a co-conspirator in a crime? I saw on the news that a man, Z, will also be charged for killing X. It appears that W and Y are the ones who attacked X, which caused the latter’s death. Z did not take part in the actual attack. According to the supposed witness, Z was at the place where the attack happened, and he just stood there and did nothing to help X. I believe for that reason alone, he is being implicated for the killing of X. Is that correct?

Bruno

Dear Bruno,

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code describes the concept of conspiracy under our law. As specifically stated therein:

“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.” (Emphasis supplied)

If conspiracy is clearly established, all those proven to have participated in the crime will be held liable as “the act of one is the act of all.” We wish to emphasize that participation does not necessarily mean “giving a hand” in the commission of the crime. There are times when inaction may be considered as part of the commission of the crime if there is a concrete showing that the presence or inaction of a party has extended some form of assistance in fully executing the crime.

In the situation you mentioned, we submit that Z can only be validly implicated as a co-conspirator in the killing of X if there is concrete evidence establishing that his presence lent “a helping hand” or “moral assistance” to W and Y. As explained by our Supreme Court, mere presence cannot result in his or her implication in the commission of a crime unless it is clearly established that his or her overt acts demonstrate cooperation in fulfilling the criminal plan. To be certain, Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin explained in the case of People of the Philippines v. Bernie Raguro et al. (GR 224301, July 30, 2019):

“x x x Conspiracy could not be deduced from his being merely present at the scene of the crime. He must be shown at least to have committed an overt act that indicated his concurrence in the common criminal design to kill their victims that had animated the attack by the others. Such overt act by de Mesa, to be sufficient to implicate him as a co-conspirator, must be beyond a merely preparatory act.

“The character of the overt act is well explained in People v. Lizada:

“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which, if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison d’etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the ‘first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made.’ The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]