Notes on Conspiracy

1. To be liable for conspiracy, what must the conspirator do? To be liable for the acts of others, there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design. Except when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The following are not enough/sufficient proof of conspiracy: a. mere presence at the situs of the crime (i.e. when person was present when crime was committed) b. relationship with the other accused (i.e. person is the brother of the accused) c. cognizance or approval of an illegal act [Note] There must be evidence of actual participation. Magic words: Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. 2. What are the two concepts of conspiracy? (a) conspiracy as a crime by itself (i.e. treason, rebellion, sedition) (b) conspiracy as a means of commiting a crime/incurring crimina liability. As a means of committing a crime, conspiracy may be: 1. by pre-agreement (express conspiracy) 2. implied from the concerted acts of the offenders (implied conspiracy) 3. What are the kinds of conspiracy as a means of committing a crime? a. Express conspiracy or conspiracy by prior agreement. In this case, a conspirator is liable as long as he appeared in the scene of the crime. [Note: This means that when there was a pre-arrangement or plan to commit a felony, the mere presence of the conspirator is enough to make him liable and an overt act/actual participation is no longer needed to prove conspiracy.] As such, A and B who planned to commit murder and decided to commit it but only B was able to commit the crime because A was apprehended is still liable as a co-conspirator. (Bar question, Joel and Arturo, 1998) b. Implied conspiracy or conspiracy deduced from the acts of the offender. Here, the offenders acted in concert. It is essential for liability to attach that the conspirator participated in the commission of the crime. His mere presence or approval of the crime will not make the alleged conspirator liable. Since conspiracy in this instance is instantaneous or spur of the moment, if he did not participate, it shows that he had no intent to join in the commission of the crime. 4. In express conspiracy, who should be liable for a second unplanned crime committed by one or some of the perpetrators? The liability of the conspirators is only for the crime agreed upon except: a. When the crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission indicating their approval thereof; (i.e. after beating a rival, C took the watch and wallet of the former with A and B watching, then A, B and C are all guilty of beating the rival and taking his watch and wallet.) b. When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned; (i.e. A, B and C only planned to beat the rival but because of the gravity of his injuries, the rival died. A, B and C are all liable for his death.) c. When the resulting crime was a composite crime because a composite crime or a special complex crime is indivisible. It cannot be split into different parts, one part to be deemed covered by the conspiracy and the other outside of conspiracy. Composite crimes - are crimes which in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical injuries.

In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.

Conspiracy: The Rules The General Rule: when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. They are all liable for the crime agreed upon. Except: if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon, then that does not fall within the collective liability but the individual liability of the person who committed the subsequent crime. Except: (a) when the crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission; *ordinary exception* (b) when the crime is a natural consequence of the crime planned; *praeter intentionem exception* (c) when it is a composite or special complex crime which is indivisible. *call this the amazing exception* In the ordinary exception, (a), co-conspirators who had no knowledge or did not approve of the other crime is not liable. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the conspirators are distinct crimes. In the amazing exception, even if the other crime was committed without the knowledge and approval of the other co-conspirators, they will still be liable for all the acts committed by one of them. [Note: be careful of conspiracy cases involving robbery for robbery has an element of force or violence; physical injuries, homicide and rape then becomes an element of robbery making it an indivisible offense.] *Please dont use amazing and ordinary exception. I just made that up.*