Conspiracy Law Examples - Conspiracy Definition Law { 2022 }


Criminal Conspiracy Definition Implied

In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, Jan 18, 2012 -The “evidence of a chain of circumstances,” to wit: that appellant went inside the house of Romines to ascertain that the victim was there; that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave the dipping to Dollendo to commit the crime; and that they both fled after the stabbing, taken collectively, shows a community of criminal Law design to kill the victim. Evidently, there was a conspiracy in the commission of the crime.


Conspiracy Definition Law


It is immaterial whether the appellant acted as a principal or as an accomplice because the conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. the act of one is the act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime Law (People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010).


To exempt himself from criminal Law liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy Law to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof (People vs. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635 November 15, 2010).


To be held liable as a conspirator, it must also be shown that the accused performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy except in the case of the mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans the commission of a crime Law is liable as conspirator and principal by inducement (People vs. Compiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004, En banc).

Notwithstanding, the fact that one wasn't at the crime scene, evidence proved that he was the mastermind of the criminal Law act or the principal by inducement. What's important is that inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. The command or advice made by the principal by inducement was of such nature that, without it, the crime would not have materialized (People vs. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011). 


Accused, unarmed, appeared in the company law of his employer, and another person. His employer shot and killed the victim. The accused did nothing to prevent the killing. The accused fled together with his employer and another person. The fact that the accused appeared together with an employer and another and fled with them proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in the execution of the crime. However, there is doubt as to whether the accused acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice. 

Such doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal Law liability—that of a mere accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is armed at the time, he could be held liable as principal on the basis of implied conspiracy. The fact that the companion of the criminal Law actor is armed may mean that the former is supplying moral assistance to the latter. The armed presence of a conspiratorial companion may prove a sense of security and encouragement on the part of the material executor or may serve as deterrence against a possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002, En Banc).


B.P. BlG. 22 doesn't expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the provisions RPC including the rule. Hence, such a rule may be applied supplementarily. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for the violation of BP BlG. 22 on the basis of conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262. Thus, a person (such as a mother-in-law), who has no marital, se-xual, or dating relationship with the victim, can be held liable for violence against a woman on the basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)

Anti-graft law 

May a private person be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information?

Answer: Yes. The death of the public officer does not mean that the allegation of conspiracy between him and the private individual can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of the public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and a private individual (People vs. Go, GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014, en banc). 


When a Killing takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there's proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove, or even remotely suggest, that appellant tried to stop the killing. 

Therefore, the basic principle in a conspiracy that the "act of one is the act of all," applies in this case (People vs. EBET, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013) If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. 

All those that conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal cons-piracy adopts the criminal Law designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized (People vs. EBET, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).

Constitutional Law
Property Law

Post a Comment