b. Conspiracy and Proposal

Elements of illegal sale

• Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration;
• Delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. (People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Honrado and Romulo Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 2012)

Delivery is any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.

Q: X and Y were charged with Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Drugs under Section 5, in relation to Section 26, of RA 9165. The PDEA received a tip from their informant that he was being recruited by X to transport a certain luggage to Malaysia. Acting on the tip of the PDEA, the informant then informed X that he found a willing recruit to transport the said luggage to Malaysia. Z, the PDEA official who posed as the willing recruit met up with X in a hotel in Malate Manila. X then briefed Z on his mission in Malaysia. Y entered the room afterwards bringing another luggage. When Z peaked at the contents of the luggage, he found sachets containing white crystalline substances. A total of 4, 540.01 grams of shabu was found inside the luggages. The conviction of X and Y were nonetheless appealed. Was the conviction proper?

A: The conviction was proper. All elements of Conspiracy to Transport, sell, and deliver dangerous drugs under Section 5, in relation to Section 26 of RA 9165 were present. In Illegal Transportation of drugs, the movement of drugs from one place to another is the essential element. There is no definite time when an accused will transport the drugs. Hence, the mere purpose of transportation and the fact of transportation of drugs are sufficient to constitute a conviction. Yet, even in the absence of actual conveyance, an attempt to transport prohibited drugs is meted the same penalty prescribed for the commission thereof under Section 26 of R.A. 9165. The purpose to illegally transport drugs to Malaysia was established when Z was told to go to the hotel for briefing. Z then was able to confirm that the luggage contained white crystalline substances. At that point, the crime of transportation of prohibited drugs is already at its attempted stage. Under the Revised Penal Code, the attempted phase of a felony occurs when the offender commences the commission of a felony, directly by overt 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. (People v. Lacson y Navarro, G.R. No. 229055, July 15, 2020.)

Identifying self with a group

If there is conspiracy, knowingly identifying one’s self with a group that commits rebellion is enough for conviction thereof, even if he himself did not rise publicly and take arms.

Principal By Inducement vs. Offender Who Made Proposal To Commit A Felony

Absence of dating relationship or marriage does not preclude the presence of conspiracy

While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. Hence, parents-in-law may be punished under the said law. (Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, 2008)

WHEN CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY ARE PUNISHABLE

General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.

Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor, such as:

• Treason;
• Rebellion;
• Insurrection;
• Coup d’etat;
• Sedition;
• Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade;
• Espionage;
• Selected acts committed under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act;
• Terrorism under the Human Security Act of 2007 (now the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020)

Art. 136. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Coup D’état, Rebellion, or Insurrection

CONSPIRACY

Exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, RPC)

Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. If a felony is committed in furtherance of a proven conspiracy, each conspirator whose participation in the conspiracy connected to that felony is proved is liable for acts done pursuant to their common criminal design. Mere agreement is independently punishable only where the law specially provides a penalty. (Art. 8, RPC; People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019) (People vs. Monroy, et al., G.R. No. L-11177)

REQUISITES:

• Two or more persons came to an agreement;
• The agreement pertains to the commission of a felony; and
• The execution of the felony was decided upon.

Crimes Penalized under Article 136

• Conspiracy to commit rebellion;
• Proposal to commit rebellion
• Conspiracy to commit coup d’état
• Proposal to commit coup d’état

Unity of Purpose

It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. Obedience to a command does not necessarily show concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of the conspirators that show their common design. (People v. Dorico, G.R. No. L-31568)

Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason

Elements:

• Proposal to Commit Treason
• In times of War;
• A Person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to Adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort; and
• Proposes its execution to some other person/s.
• Conspiracy to Commit Treason
• In times of War;
• Two Or More persons come to an Agreement to -
• Levy war against the government; or
• Adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort; and
• They Decide to commit it.

Conspiracy to commit rebellion

When two (2) or more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for any of the purposes of rebellion and decide to commit it (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 100)

Conspiracy and Proposal to commit a felony as a general rule

As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable. (Art. 8) Art. 115 is an exception as it specifically penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.

Proposal if accepted

Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable. If the person proposed to accepts, it amounts to conspiracy.

Sufficiency of mere membership

Mere membership in a rebellious organization is insufficient to find an accused guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion; it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused agreed with others to commit rebellion and decided to commit it. (People v Lava, GR No. L-4974- 78)

Effect when the acts of Treason are committed after Conspiracy or Proposal

If acts of treason are committed after the conspiracy or proposal, the crime committed will be treason, and the conspiracy or proposal is considered as a means in the commission thereof. The act of conspiracy and proposal are absorbed therein.

Mere act of agreeing and deciding

Merely agreeing and deciding to commit the above-mentioned crimes against the Government, without actually performing the overt acts, is already punishable as Conspiracy to commit Rebellion. (People v Geronimo, GR No. L-8936)

The attribution to People v. Geronimo and its G.R. number require verification.

Express Conspiracy

Conspiracy proven by direct evidence is called express conspiracy. But direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. (Angeles v. CA, G.R. No. 101442)

Gravamen of conspiracy

There is no conspiracy when the people have not agreed or decided to commit the crimes.

Acts which seem helpful to rebels

Even if some acts may be construed as helpful to rebels, if there is no intent to aid them in achieving their rebellious purposes, those who gave aid are not liable as conspirators.

Implied Conspiracy

Conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence. This is called implied conspiracy. Implied conspiracy may be proven through the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of a felony, all the accused aiming at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another for the attainment of the same criminal objective. (People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 188386-87)

When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy. (People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L35700)

Simultaneity in attacking the victim is indicative of implied conspiracy. (People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 184506). But there is no implied conspiracy if the simultaneity of the attacks by several accused was just a reflex response or spontaneous reaction: to a sudden discovery of cheating in a gambling by the victim (1968 Bar Exam), or to the shooting of the companion of the accused by the victim (1992 Bar Exam), or to commission of robbery by the victim. (1977 Bar Exam)

Mere giving of speeches

Even if someone gave speeches extolling the crimes, if there is no evidence that those who heard it took it as a proposal, the person who gave the speech is not liable under this article.

Proof of conspiracy

While it is true that the elements of conspiracy must be proved by the same kind of proof (proof beyond reasonable doubt) necessary to establish the physical acts constituting the crime itself, this is not to say that direct proof of such conspiracy is always required. The existence of conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence. Nor is it necessary to prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the crime charged. Indeed, conspiracy is very rarely proved by direct evidence of an explicit agreement to commit the crime. Thus, the rule is well-settled that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, where such conduct reasonably shows community of criminal purpose or design. (People v. Solar y Dumbrique, G.R. No. 225595, J. CAGUIOA)

There is no criminal proposal when:

• The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;
• There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; and
• It is not the execution of the felony that is proposed.

Multiple Offenders

Proposal to commit rebellion

When the person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for any of the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution to some other person/s (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 100)

To whom conspiracy must be reported

RPC mentions 4 individuals to whom the conspiracy must be reported [i.e. 1) governor, 2) provincial fiscal, 3) mayor, or 4) city fiscal]. But what if it is reported to some other high-ranking government official? (ex: PNP Director)? Judge Pimentel opines that reporting to any government official of the DILG suffices.

Inciting to Rebellion and Proposal To Commit Rebellion, Distinguished

Note: In both proposal and inciting, the offender induces another to commit rebellion

Art. 141. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition

There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition in order to constitute the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition.

(N.B. There is no independent felony of proposal to commit sedition)

---

Pattern

It consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated under the definition of “ill-gotten wealth,” directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. There must either be an “overall unlawful scheme” or “conspiracy” to achieve said common goal.

Overall Unlawful Scheme

It indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal.

Absence of such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 2001)

Wheel or circle conspiracy

In the wheel or circle conspiracy, a person or a group (“hub”) deals with 2 or more persons or groups (“spokes”), to achieve the common goal of amassing and accumulating ill-gotten wealth. A public officer need not be the “hub” because what Sec. 2 merely requires is that the public officer must be in connivance with others. In other words, such public officer, by his individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth with others in a wheel conspiracy either as a hub or part of spokes. (Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016)

Need not consist of material things

The price, reward or promise need not consist of material things or need not be actually delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made be accepted before the commission of the offense.

Conspiracy presupposes premeditation

• General Rule: Where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted.
• Exception: When conspiracy is only implied, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out.