Dear PAO,

I’ve seen and heard in the news that in some crimes, there are several suspects or alleged perpetrators of a purported crime. In many of these situations, the word “conspiracy” is often mentioned. In line with such, I find conspiracy as a state of the “mind” kind of thing. Given this general description of conspiracy, may I know how conspiracy is determined and established in an alleged crime?

Nikko

Dear Nikko,

It is correct that we cannot discuss conspiracy without considering the state of mind of the persons involved. After all, establishing conspiracy requires the meeting of the minds of the personalities responsible for an alleged act coming to an agreement.

Precisely, Article 8 of Act Number 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, defines conspiracy and provides how its existence is established, viz.:

“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 and Underscoring Supplied)

In connection with the foregoing, a plethora of Supreme Court decisions serve as a guidepost in explaining how the above-stated provision of law is applied. In People v. Evasco (GR 213415, Sept. 26, 2018), penned by Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court dictates how conspiracy is established:

“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjecture, but by positive and conclusive evidence, direct or circumstantial.” (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

Given the intrinsic challenge of proving conspiracy, the Supreme Court, citing the earlier case of Macapagal-Arroyo v. People (GR 220598 & GR 220953, July 19, 2016) by the same ponente, discussed the two types of conspiracy, which is an offshoot of the difficulty in finding a direct proof of the agreement concerning the commission of a felony, thus:

“Direct proof of the agreement, and of the decision to commit it is not always accessible, but that should not be a hindrance to rendering a finding of implied conspiracy. Thus, the Court has discoursed in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People:

“In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co-conspirators to commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second form, the implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.

“Indeed, when it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy could be inferred although no actual meeting among them is proved.” (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

Applying the aforementioned law and jurisprudence, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. As discussed in the cited jurisprudence, if there is proof of an actual agreement among all the co-conspirators to commit the crime — the same is considered as the first form, i.e. an express conspiracy.

Be that as it may, as you established in your question, conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon. Indeed, a state of the mind matters. As such, when the barometer is the alleged co-conspirators’ combined actions without proof of an actual agreement, the second form which is the implied conspiracy comes into play. This form of conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action, and a community of interest.

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]