Because of the global health disaster, strict lockdowns were implemented by the government. People were only required to stay at home, thus, affecting different establishments. Some temporarily closed while others declared bankruptcy. One of the most affected sector of this virus is the hotel industry.
Happy Morning’s Hotel, a well-known hotel, was greatly affected by COVID-19. Since it cannot longer accept guests and events, it decided to conduct a retrenchment program, which resulted to the dismissal of some their employees.
Miguel Lopez de Hernandez, a housekeeper of the said hotel and likewise, a breadwinner of five children, was one of the unfortunate workers who was laid off from work. Since he’s the only one working for the family, he has nowhere to get an allowance except from his salary.
After knowing that he was dismissed from work, he immediately tried to look for another. However, he was not able to to do so because businesses are closing as well. Desperate enough, he contacted his friend, Diego de Francisco, who was also dismissed from the same hotel.
Miguel and Diego decided to rob a bank in Quincy Avenue After being all set, they met in front of the bank but after an hour of acting strange, police arrested them.
A piece of paper was found in Miguel’s wallet bearing the game plan of the two with regard to robbing the bank. They were brought to the police station and were charged conspiracy to commit robbery. Is the charge valid?
Can you be held criminally liable for mere conspiracy? What does conspiracy to commit a crime mean?
It is provided under Article 8 of the Penal Code1 that conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
In this case, the law does not specially provide for penalty for conspiracy to commit robbery. Miguel and Diego are to be regarded as innocent because conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable under the law. Their actions where only preparatory acts of actually committing the crime.
No one can be held criminally liable for mere conspiracy expect in cases where the law provides for a penalty thereof. If conspiracy is used only as a manner of incurring criminal liability and there is no actual doing of the crime planned of, the conspirators cannot be held liable.
If the conspirators are still on the stage of planning the execution of the crime and none of them has executed and personally taken part in the execution of the crime, they are still considered innocent until they actually commit the crime.
Exceptions
However, if the crime conspired of involves treason, rebellion, coup d’ etat or sedition, they are already liable for conspiracy. According to our criminal law, mere conspiracy of such crimes is punishable.
If the conspirators took a step forward and actually involved themselves in acts constituting treason, rebellion, coup d’ etat or sedition, they are no longer just liable for conspiracy.
Instead, all conspirators who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution are equally liable for the crimes they committed, such as treason, rebellion or sedition, as the case may be. Here, the crime of conspiracy will be absorbed to the crimes they committed.
As a rule, mere conspiracy is not punishable. Nevertheless, if it involves crimes against external and internal security of the State, the law explicitly provides for their penalty, making mere conspiracy of such crimes punishable.
The reason behind this is that, in crimes against external and internal security of the State, if the culprit succeeds his plans, he will obtain power and subsequently, will relieve himself from the consequences he may have, as a culprit.
There are two provisions in the Penal Code2 which provides for a penalty for mere conspiracy. One of this conspiracy to commit treason.
There is conspiracy to commit treason under Article 115, if two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and they decide to commit it.
Another example is conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or insurrection.
Here, when two or more persons come to an agreement to swiftly attack or to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for any of the purposes of rebellion or insurrection and they decide to commit it, he or she may be held liable with this crime.
All of these crimes are punishable because the very existence of the State is endangered.
How do you determine conspiracy in the commission of crime?
According to the case of Rimando vs People of the Philippines,3 the Supreme Court explained that while conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design.
If the accused agreed to cooperate with the perpetrators of the crime, but there was no active participation in the furtherance of the crime, their mere presence does not make them liable.4
It is necessary that there must have been at least an over act, direct or indirect to the victim, which has necessary relation to the successful execution of the crime to constitute an accused as party to a conspiracy.
Having said that, mere presence, knowledge or approval of the accused in the planning of the conspiracy, absent any over act or any participation, would not make him liable for such crime.
Moreover, in cases where killing was not part of the original plan prior to its commission but there was spontaneous agreement between the actions of the parties who all contributed to the death of the victim, all the accused may be made guilty of conspiracy.
What is the difference between attempt and conspiracy to commit a crime?
Under Article 6 of the Penal Code,2 there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
As to conspiracy to commit a crime, there is no attempt by the offender. The commission of the crime shall not commence in this case because, if there is execution of any act necessary to the crime, it is not already just conspiracy. It may be some other crimes, as designated by law.
To further visualize the difference, here’s a scenario.
Angelo and Vincent went out to drink with their friends, one of them was Joshua. When they were already intoxicated, an heated argument ensued between Vincent and Joshua. After few minutes, Vincent and Angelo decided to kill Joshua. However, it did not push though because Joshua asked for forgiveness. In this case, there was only conspiracy to commit a plan. What happened here is the mere planning of committing a crime. Nonetheless, there has yet been any overt act executed by the persons who decided to ill someone.
On the other hand, if Vincent shouted at Joshua saying that he would kill the latter, and subsequently pulled the trigger, but the bullet hit the trunk of the tree at the back of Joshua, there would have been attempted homicide. The act of Vincent in pulling the trigger showed his intention to kill Joshua. Yet, because he was not able to position the gun straightly, he was not able to execute the crime. Here, there is only attempt to kill.
Distinctions between Conspiracy to commit a crime and Proposal thereof
Article 8 of the Penal Code2 provides for the definition of conspiracy to commit a crime and proposal thereof.
This provision explicitly provided therein that there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
On the other hand, there is proposal to commit a crime when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Based on the definition given, it can be inferred therefrom that the difference of conspiracy to commit a crime and proposal thereof is that, in the former, all the conspirators have made up their minds to commit a crime, whereas in the latter, only the person proposing has decided to commit a felony but he later on proposes it to some other person or persons for its execution.
What has been Decided
To reiterate, conspiracy to commit a crime is not punishable except in some cases where the law provides a penalty. Just like conspiracy, mere proposal to commit a crime is not punishable under our laws, except in cases where the crime conspired of or proposed is against external and internal security of the State.
Conspiracy presupposes the existence of a preconceived plan or agreement; however, to establish conspiracy, “it is not essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors committed shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.” Hence, conspiracy is proved if there is convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a common objective pursued in concert.5
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.6
Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.7
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed. 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 com- mission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.8
Closing
To conclude, mere conspiracy is not a punishable by law except in cases where the law provides a penalty thereof such as conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, coup d’etat and sedition.
Since conspiracy to commit a crime is an agreement made by the conspirators for the execution of a certain crime, mere knowledge or agreement for the commission of a crime is not punishable under our law.
If there is no actual execution of such crime, conspirators cannot be held liable. However, if they all participated in pursuing the agreed crime, they will be all held equally liable for the crime they committed.
In this case, conspiracy will be absorbed to such crime. In order to be considered as conspirator, there must be an overt act that is necessary in the execution of the crime.
Mere presence in the crime scene is not sufficient to prove one’s participation. There must be convincing evidence to prove that all the conspirators really participated in the commission of the crime.
Lastly, conspiracy can be proven not only be the acts of the conspirators before the crime, but also during and after. If all their actions aim to accomplish that unlawful purpose, then, there may be conspiracy between all of them.
- Revised Penal Code of the Philippines[↩]
- Supra., Revised Penal Code[↩][↩][↩]
- November 29, 2017, G.R. No. 229701[↩]
- Ibid.[↩]
- People of the Philippines vs. Peralta, et al., GR No. L -19069[↩]
- People of the Philippines vs. Escobal, GR. No. 206292, October 11,2017[↩]
- San Juan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011[↩]
- Supra., Rimando vs People of the Philippines, GR No. 229701, November 29, 2017[↩]