CONSPIRACY AND

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
FELONY ( ART 8 RPC)
CONSPIRACY- EXIST WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS COME TO AN
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY AND
DECIDE TO COMMIT IT.
 REQUISITES OF
CONSPIRACY
1. TWO OR MORE PERSONS COME TO AN AGREEMENT
2. THE AGREEMENT CONCERNED THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY
3. THE EXECUTION OF THE FELONY BE DECIDED UPON

EX.
A, B AND C GATHERED IN THE HOUSE OF D ONE NIGHT TO DEVISE A PLAN ON HOW TO
COMMIT A REBELLION AND TAKE OVER A MUNICIPAL BUILDING. AFTER CAREFUL PLANNING,
THEY DECIDED TO CARRY OUT THEIR PLAN AFTER THREE DAYS.
• GEN.RULE: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY IS NOT
PUNISHABLE

AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT A CRIME IS A REPREHENSIBLE ACT FROM THE VIEW-

POINT OF MORALITY, BUT AS LONG AS THE CONSPIRATORS DO NOT PERFORM
OVER ACTS IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THEIR MALEVOLENT DESIGN,THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE IS NOT OUTRAGED AND THE TRANQUILITY OF THE
PUBLIC REMAINS UNDISTURBED ( people v Peralta)

• XPN: THEY ARE PUNISHABLE ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIALLY
PROVIDED A PENALTY THEREFORE
1. Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
2. Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, Rebellion, or
Insurrection -
3. Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition

Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime.

• Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
• 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in
any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of
trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the
market;
• PD 532: Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
• SEC 26 OF RA 9165 – any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following inlawful
acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the
same.
• TERORISM (R.A 9372)
Two kinds of conspiracy
1.Conspiracy as a crime
- When conspiracy itself is expressly punished by law
Example.
1.Art 115
2.Art 136
3.Art 141
Ivy, Kristin and Ara, together with other 200 men all met up and planned to
attack and occupy the city hall and the sanggunian building and they decided to
launch their attack on first Monday of the following month.
- Conspiracy to commit rebellion
- AS A FELONY, A CONSPIRATOR DO NOT NEED TO ACTUALLY COMMIT A
TREASON, REBELLION, INSURRECTION, ETC IT BEING SUFFICIENT THAT TWO OR
MORE PERSONS AGREE AND DECIDE TO COMMIT IT.
Two kinds of conspiracy
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
-when the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed it is not a felony but
only a manner of incurring criminal liability
example.
A B and C are all worker of Chickenitos. They hate their boss D because she was
very strict. During lunch break A,B,and C met at the storage room and began to
devise a plan on how to kill D. They decided to kill her the next morning.
during the next morning, A and B went inside the office of their boss D when no
one was looking. C acted as a lookout and positioned herself beside theoffice
door. B, who has a gun tucked inside his shirt give the gone to A. A shot D and D
died.
AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY, IF THEY COMMIT
TREASON ,REBELLION, ETC THEY WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR IT. AND THE
CONSPIRACY WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE COMMITING THE CRIME IS ONLY A
Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
rule
1. The act of one is the act of all ( gen rule) when conspiracy is established, all
who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his
participation is liable equally, whether is pre planned or instantaneous.
Points to remember:
a. The elements of relationship must be present as to all the offenders.
b. Offenders must have knowledge of the material execution or the means
employed to accomplish the act.
c. A co conspirator not present at the scene of the crime because of change of
hearts is not liable.
Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
Rule
2.Conspiracy is not punishable as a separate offense.
Example.
Ivy, Kristin and Ara, together with other 200 men all met up and planned to attack
and occupy the city hall and the sanggunian building and they decided to launch
their attack on first Monday of the following month.
When the day came, they executed their plan but failed to occupy the building
because of the valiant and heroic effort of the armed forces and police officers.
Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
Rule
3.Previous agreement is not necessary if they all acted in concert to pursue a
criminal design.
Example.
One night, A,B, and C were playing ML in the house of A when someone threw
stone at their window. Enraged, A, B and C ran outside and saw X. A tried to hit
X’s head with a big stone but he missed, so B tackled X and pinned him down. C
picked up a sharp wood and tried to stab X but it was blocked by X. A and B
held the arms and legs of X tightly. C managed to stab X and killed him.

Implied Conspiracy
CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY , DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER
OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

 AS A FELONY, A CONSPIRATOR DO NOT NEED TO ACTUALLY COMMIT A

TREASON, REBELLION, INSURRECTION, ETC IT BEING SUFFICIENT THAT TWO OR
MORE PERSONS AGREE AND DECIDE TO COMMIT IT.
 AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY, IF THEY COMMIT
TREASON ,REBELLION, ETC THEY WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR IT. AND THE
CONSPIRACY WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE COMMITING THE CRIME IS ONLY A
MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY, NOT A SEPPARATE OFFENSE.
 LEGAL EFFECTS OF IMPLIED
CONSPIRACY
• NOT ALL THOSE PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE WILL BE CONSIDERED CONSPIRATORS.
• ONLY THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTS DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME WILL BE CONSIDERED CO CONSPIRATOR
• MERE ACQUIESCENCE TO OR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, WITHOUT ANY
ACT OF CRIMINAL PARTICIPATION, SHALL NOT RENDER ONE CRIMINALLY LIABLE AS CO
CONSPIRATOR
• IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PREVIOUS PLAN OR AGREEMENT TO COMMIT A CRIME, THE
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM A DIFFERENT ACTS DIRECTED AGAINST ONE AND
THE SAME PERSON IS INDIVIDUAL AND NOT COLLECTIVE, AND THAT EACH OF THE
PARTICIPANTS IS LIABLE ONLY FOR IS OWN ACTS.
2 CONCEPTS OF STAGE HOW INCURRED LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
CONSPIRACY
AS A FELONY IN PREPARATORY MERE AGREEMENT • THE RPC MUST SPECIFICALLY PUNISH THE ACT OF
ITSELF ACTS CONSPIRING ( PPROPOSING)
• THE ACT MUST NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED, ELSE THE
CONSPIRACY IS OBLITERATED AND THE ACT ITSELF IS
OR CONSPIRACY PUNISHED.
AS A CRIME • QUANTUM OF PROOF : CONSPIRACY AS ACRIME MUST BE
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

AS A BASIS FOR EXECUTORY ACTS COMMISSION OF OVERT

LIABILITY OR AS ACTS • PARTCIPANTS ACTED IN CONCERT OR SIMULTANEOUSLY ON
A MANNER OF IN ANY WAY WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF A MEETING OF MINDS
TOWARDS A COMMON CRIMINAL GOAL OR OBJECTIVES.
INCURRING THE ACT OF MEETING TOGETHER IS NOT NECESSARY AS
•
CRIMINAL LONG AS A COMMON OBJECTIVE CAN BE DISCERNED FROM
LIABILITY THE OVERACTS
• THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPLISH, IF THERE IS ONLY
CONSPIRACY OR PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO CRIME TO
PUNISHED.
• QUANTUM OF PROOF : REASONABLY INFERRED FROM THE
ACTS OF THE OFFENDERS WHEN SUCH ACTS DISCLOSE OR
SHOW A COMMON PURSUIT OF THE CRIMINAL OBJECTIVE.
What is Proposal to commit felony?
There is proposal When the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person.

REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY

1.That the person has decided to commit a felony
2.That he proposes its execution to some other person
 Example of proposal

A , WAS ALREADY FED UP WITH HOW

THE GOVERNMENT IS RUNNING THE
COUNTRY SO HE CALLED HIS
FRIENDS AND TOLD THEM HIS PLAN
TO COMMIT A REBELLION AND
INVITED THEM TO JOIN.
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT

TREASON ART 115

COUP D’ ETAT ART 136
REBELLION ART 136
• THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PROPOSAL WHEN:
1. THE PERSON WHO PROPOSES IS NOT DETERMINED TO COMMIT THE FELONY
2. THERE IS NO DECIDED, CONCRETE AND FORMAL PROPOSAL
3. IT IS NOT THE EXECUTION OF A FELONY THAT IS PROPOSED

NOTE: IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PROPOSAL IS

MADE AGREES TO COMMIT TREASON OR REBELLION.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 148965. February 26, 2002
Puno, J.
FACTS: As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then
President of the Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints against the former
President and members of his family, his associates, friends, and conspirators were filed with the
respondent Office of the Ombudsman. The respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution
finding probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal
Information's against the former President and the other respondents therein. One of the
Information was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the
respondents was herein petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

ISSUE: won the charge against petitioner be dismissed on the ground that the allegation of
conspiracy in the Information is too general

HELD: No. In the crime of plunder, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the
case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality to help
the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in
the Amended Information alleged the different participation of each accused in the conspiracy.
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive
Under the Philippine law, conspiracy should be understood on two levels. As a general rule,
conspiracy is not a crime in our jurisdiction. Under the Philippine law, conspiracy should be
understood on two levels. As a general rule, conspiracy is not a crime in our jurisdiction. It is
punished as a crime only when the law fixes a penalty for its commission such as in conspiracy
to commit treason, rebellion, and sedition. In contrast, under American criminal law, the
agreement or conspiracy itself is the gravamen of the offense. When conspiracy is charged as a
crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of the said crime must be set forth in the
complaint or information. The requirements on the sufficiency of allegations are different
when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the
crime as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the
Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged. The conspiracy is
significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and
makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the
crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally
responsible for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all. A conspiracy indictment
need not, of course, aver all the components of conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like
the part that each of the parties therein has performed, the evidence proving the common
design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of the conspiracy.
Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same degree of particularity required in
describing a substantive offense.
People v Go
G.R,no. 168539
FACTS:
The respondent, Henry Go, who was then a chairman ND President of PIATCO, was charged for
having allegedly colluded with the DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile. The office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon found probable case to prosecute the respondent in violation of R.A
3019. while there was a finding of probable cause againstSecretary Enrile, he was no longer
indicated because he passed ways before the resolution finding probable cause was given
out.the sandiganbayan issued an order to to give reason why the case should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction over the person pf the accused bearing in mind that the accused is a
private personand the public official Enrile, his alleged co conspirator, is already deceased and
not an accused in this case. The sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash and information
filed in this case is ordered quashed and dismissed.
ISSUE: won the death of a public officer in crime extinguish the liability of his conspirator

HELD: No.The supreme court states that while it is true that by reason of death, there is no
longer any public officer with whom the respondent can be charged for violating the R.A.
3019.However, the allegation of conspiracy between them can nom longer be proved or
theiralleged conspiracy is already erased.
People v Roberto Esperanza Jesalva
GR.No. 227306
FACTS:
On September 16, 2007, at around 1:00 a.m., Ortigosa, Renato B. Flores (Flores) and Manny Boy
Ditche were drinking in Dupax Street, Old Balara, Quezon City. Later, they decided to go to a
store to buy cigarettes. On their way to the store, Flores noticed accused-appellant standing in a
comer near the store and staring at them. Then, accused-appellant walked away and
disappeared. Later, accused-appellant reappeared, accompanied by Menieva and Ilaw, and
followed Ortigosa and his group to the store. When accused-appellant and his companions were
already in front of Ortigosa, Menieva uttered, "Ne!, ano ba yan?" and proceeded to stab
Ortigosa twice with an icepick. Menieva stabbed Ortigosa first on the right portion of his chest,
then on his left armpit. As Menieva stabbed Ortigosa, Ilaw pointed a sumpak at Ortigosa while
accused-appellant pointed at Ortigosa' s group and left.
ISSUE:WON THE ACCUSED OF GUILTY OF MURDER BECAUSE OF CONSPIRING WITH THE OTHER
ACCUSED
HELD: No, herein accused is not guilty of murder due to conspiracy.
People v Benito
Gr. 204644
FACTS:
Pamintuan, introduced Rebecca Agbulos (Agbulos) and Angelito Benito (Benito) to Doris Abadilla (Abadilla) as a Jeweler. Abadilla
and Agbulos entered into several transactions for the sale of assorted pieces of jewelry in the amount of P2,070,300.00,
Philippine Currency, for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis, under the express obligation on the part of said
accused of turning over the proceeds of the sale to abadilla if sold. In all these transactions in abadilla’s residence in Quezon City,
Benito accompanied Agbulos. On June 21, 1994, Agbulos gave as security the owner's copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
438259. However, upon verification with the Land Registration Authority, the certificate of title turned out to be spurious.
Abadilla deposited the checks Agbulos issued to her, and all were dishonored by reason of "closed account." Abadilla then tried
to locate Agbulos, but Agbulos could no longer be found. After several months, Abadilla learned from Agbulos' sister-in-law that
the latter received pawn tickets from a friend. Abadilla went to E. Ochoa Pawnshop to verify the items described in the pawn
tickets. She learned that the items pawned were among the pieces of jewelry she turned over to Agbulos, specifically, a men's
diamond ring and a set of diamond ring and earrings. She also learned from Diloria, the pawnshop appraiser, that the "Linda
Chua" who pawned her jewelry was Benito, which was denied by the latter. On October 28, 1994, Rebecca Agbulos and Angelita
Cruz Benito were charged with estafa punished under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC found them
guilty beyond reasonable doubt that Agbulos and Benito conspired to commit estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or Not the prosecution failed to prove Benito’s conspiracy with Agbulos to commit Estafa

HELD: YES, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution did failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy between
Benito and Agbulos. Benito was merely present during the negotiation. Even assuming that Benito accompanied Agbulos in going
to Abadilla's residence, this does not prove that Benito received any jewelry from Abadilla. As the helper of Agbulos' brother,
Benito may have accompanied Agbulos on her employer's order. "Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not by itself
indicative of conspiracy between the accused.
People v Cedon
Gr no 101117
FACTS:
This case is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused Marcelino Cedon (alias Seling Cedon)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code - Appellant assigns the
following as errors of the trial court, 1. When it gave weight and credence to the improbable and contradictory testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses; and 2. When it failed to acquit the accused-appellant on the ground of insufficient evidence and
reasonable doubt to warrant his conviction - The records showed that appellant was not a socius criminis of Bulan but was
merely forced to join his group at gun point. - A careful perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses against appellant,
casts doubt as to whether he was really an active participant in the criminal enterprise. - The case for the prosecution pivots on
the testimony of Pedro Comeque. The testimony of the latter was contradicted on vital points by Gerona himself. While
Comeque testified that appellant was with the group of Bulan that returned from Aripuyok Island, Gerona categorically stated
that appellant was left in Sitio Bito-on when he (Gerona) was brought to Aripuyok Island and, as a matter of fact, he saw
appellant again in the same place upon his return in the afternoon. - While Comeque testified that he saw from his window how
Gerona was kidnapped, the latter said that Comeque was with him when he was kidnapped. - Also, Comeque admitted that his
testimony that appellant was a member of the group of Bulan was based on hearsay. - The testimony of prosecution witness,
Rudito Basilan, supports appellant’s protestation of innocence. - If appellant’s culpability was based on the sole fact that he was
seen near the house of Gerona when the latter was kidnapped, then Basilan should likewise have been indicted because he was
also in the crime scene
ISSUE: Whether or not Cedon is guilty?

HELD: DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
People v Silvestre 244 scra 481

FACTS:
Romana Silvestre, wife of Domingo Joaquin by her second marriage, cohabited with her codefendant Martin Atienza
On May 16, 1930
Domingo Joaquin, filed with the justice of the peace for that municipality, a sworn complaint for adultery the two defendants
begged the municipal president of Paombong to speak to the complainant urging him to withdraw the complaint.
Domingo Joaquin acceded to it and the justice of the peace of Paombong dismissed the adultery case commenced against the
accused.
About November 20, 1930, the accused Romana Silvestre met her son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la Cruz, in the barrio
of Santo Nino, and under pretext of asking him for some nipa leaves
On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas de la Cruz and his wife, Antonia de la Cruz, were gathered together.
Martin Atienza told said couple to take their furniture out of the house because he was going to set fire to it.
Upon being asked, why he wanted to set fire to the house, he answered that that was the only way he could be revenged upon
the people of Masocol who, he said, had instigated the charge of adultery against him and his co defendant.
Alarmed at what Martin Atienza had said, the couple left the house at once to communicate with the barrio lieutenant,
Buenaventura Ania, as to what they had just heard Martin Atienza say; but they had hardly gone a hundred arms' length when
they heard cries of "Fire! Fire!" Turning back they saw their home in flames
The fire destroyed about forty-eight houses.
Tomas Santiago and Tomas Gonzalez saw Martin Atienza going away from the house where the fire started, and Romana Silvestre
leaving it.
With respect to the accused-appellant Romana Silvestre, the only evidence of record against her are, that Romana Silvestre
listened to her co-defendant's threat without raising a protest, and did not give the alarm when the latter... set fire to the
house. Upon the strength of these facts, the court below found her guilty of arson as accomplice.
ISSUE: WN previous or simultaneous acts complicate Romana Silvestre in the crime of arson committed by her co-defendant
Martin Atienza
HELD: No. Article 14 of the Penal Code, considered in connection with article 13, defines an accomplice to be one who
does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, who does not force or induce other to commit it, nor cooperates in
the... commission of the act by another act without which it would not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution
of the act by previous or simultaneous actions
In the case of the accused-appellant Romana Silvestre, there is no evidence of moral or... material cooperation, and none of an
agreement to commit the crime in question. Her mere presence and silence while they are simultaneous acts, do not constitute
cooperation, for it does not appear that they encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to commit the... crime of arson; and as for
her failure to give the alarm, that being a subsequent act it does not make her liable as an accomplice.
Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do... not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code for complicity in the
commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent;
Principles:
Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do... not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code for complicity in the
commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent
People v Melquiades Fernandez
Gr no. 62116
FACTS:
Teofilo Malong employed Rebecca Soriano as a house- helper. On January 13 1982 at about 2: 00 o'clock in the afternoon, after
taking a bath and still naked in the bathroom, the two accused, both in short pants surreptitiously entered the bathroom . To
prevent her from making an outcry, apiece of cloth was tightly tied around her neck, after which she was forcibly laid down.
Conrado held her hands behind her while Fernandez sexually abused her. Immediately after Fernandez had raped he, Conrado in
turn went on top of her and likewise succeeded in having a sexual congress with her against her will. She added that, thereafter,
Fernandez got a handful of mud and placed it on her vagina. Immediately, she ran to the upper floor of the house to report the
tragic incident to Amelita Malong, daughter of Teofilo. They filed their complaint. In defense the two accused denied any
involvement in the offense, saying that they were nowhere at the scene of the crime when it was committed.

ISSUE: WN the court erred in convicting the accused- appellants for 2 crimes of rape.

HELD: Yes. The impositions on each of the accused of penalty corresponding to two crimes of rape is proper, because of the
existence of Conspiracy. It has been held by the court that in multiple rape ,each defendant is responsible not only for the rape
personally committed by him, but also for the rape committed b others, because each of them cooperated in the commission of
the rape perpetrated by the others, by
acts without which it would not have been accomplished.