This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Private respondent argues that petitioner likewise failed to prove conspiracy. He states that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[79] He cites the "well-settled rule" that "conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the offense itself."[80] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Judge Learned Hand once called conspiracy "the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery."[44] There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[45] Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proven separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.[46] Paraphrasing the decision of the English Court in Regina v. Murphy,[47] conspiracy may be implied if 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 of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[48] 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 complicity.[49] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[50] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[73] Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime must be proved separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the offense itself, but from its essential features of secrecy and concealment, it need not be proved by direct evidence. Instead, it is sufficient for conspiracy to be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony, showing they had acted with a common purpose and design.[74] Stated differently, the rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common unlawful design, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[75] In such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[76] | |||||