You are on page 1of 2

Conspiracy; Co-Conspirator (1998) Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel.

In a narrow alley near Joel's hou se, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley an d simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was appreh ended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as plann ed, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liabil ity of Arturo, if any. [5%] SUGGESTED ANSWER: 11 of 86 Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby become s a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and b oth will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose fro m his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jos e. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that c onspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually pa rticipate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the p lace where the crime was committed. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in the killing of Jo el. Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless expressly provided by law and thi s is not true in the case of Murder. A co-conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy. Conspiracy; Common Felonious Purpose (1994) At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faur a Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy a pproached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Is there conspiracy in this case? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted a ctions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulti ng the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victim s. Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape (1996) Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in t he morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo' s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get awa y, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant fr om the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped he r first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his famil y. a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whol e family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed comple x crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the off enders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place " distant from the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of

the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, render ing him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995} b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide ... (implied: there is still conspir acy)