Criminal Law (4)

STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY

The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages.

The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.


Formal crimes

Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. For example, in oral defamation, there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation; it is always in the consummated stage.

So also, in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes, licenses or impose for the government, shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction, the law uses the word “demanding”. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime.

The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. Literally, under the article, if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized, then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, then you have an attempted felony.

You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony, and therefore, if the act so far being done does not begin a felony, criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. In criminal law, there is such a thing as preparatory act. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability.


Question & Answer

A and B are husband and wife. A met C who was willing to marry him, but he is already married. A thought of eliminating B and to poison her. So, he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic poison. On the way out, he met D. D asked him who was sick in the family, A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison his wife in order to marry C. After that, they parted ways. D went directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife. So the policemen went to A’s house and found A still unwrapping the arsenic poison. The policemen asked A if he was planning to poison B and A said yes. Police arrested him and charged him with attempted parricide. Is the charge correct?

No. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with the food his wife is going to take. Before this, there is no attempted stage yet.

An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony.

In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word “directly”. This is significant. In the attempted stage, the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. The word "directly’" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind.

In criminal law, you are not allowed to speculate, not to imagine what crime is intended, but apply the provisions of the law of the facts given.

When a person starts entering the dwelling of another, that act is already trespassing. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. In law, the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed.

In US v. Namaja, the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. He was already able to detach two wood panels. To a layman, the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. He would not be there just to sleep there. But in criminal law, since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass, not an attempt to rob. Although, Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery, the Supreme Court held it is only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel.
There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already criminal offenses.

In abduction, your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. In so far the woman being carried is concerned, she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. You only hold him liable for an attempt, so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. Do not go far and imagine what you should do.


Question & Answer

A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. If you were to prosecute this fellow, for what crime are you going to prosecute him?

The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. There was force applied in order to enter. Other than that, under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code, illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. Thus, he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling, and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools; not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other.


Desistance

Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. If under the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability.

The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felony constituting his act.


Illustrations:

A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. But B's wound was not mortal. What A then did was to approach B, and told B, “Now you are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries, because there was an intention to kill. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first.

In another instance, A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. One evening, after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep, he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. He, however, found out that B was nude, so he lost interest and left. Can a be accused of attempted rape? No, because there was desistance, which prevented the crime from being consummated. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony.

The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. It does not mean, however, that there is no more felony committed. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. When A entered the house through the window, which is not intended for entrance, it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman, but the latter screamed, and A went out of the window again, he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling.

In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria involved:

(1) The manner of committing the crime;

(2) The elements of the crime; and

(3) The nature of the crime itself.


Manner of committing a crime

For example, let us take the crime of bribery. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. (Incidentally, the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. Actually, bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something, or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof.)

The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -- the giver and the receiver. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes, but actually, they cannot arise without the other. Hence, if only one side of the crime is present, only corruption, you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. If you have bribery only, it is only possible in the attempted stage. If you have a corruption only, it is possible only in the attempted stage. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. The public officer received the money but just the same, arrested him. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money, he has already performed all the acts of execution, and, therefore, the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver.

When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place, the receiver has no intention of being corrupted.
Similarly, when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty, the corruptor turns down the demand, there is no bribery.

If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give, but he had reported the matter to higher authorities, the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. If the public officer was arrested, do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession, the crime is already frustrated bribery, it is only attempted bribery. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. In short, there is no meeting of the minds. On the other hand, if there is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime.

But indirect bribery is always consummated. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration.

You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, when it takes two to commit the crime, there could hardly be a frustrated stage. For instance, the crime of adultery. There is no frustrated adultery. Only attempted or consummated. This is because it requires the link of two participants. If that link is there, the crime is consummated; if such link is absent, there is only an attempted adultery. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent.

There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. Because of this, there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. Without the resulting felony, there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished, there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. An example of this is the crime of rape. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. Once there is penetration already, no matter how slight, the offense is consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Orita.

In rape, it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. No penetration at all, there is only an attempted stage. Slightest penetration or slightest connection, consummated. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants.

This is also true in the crime of arson. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. In arson, the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened, that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. Because of that, the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. If it has not begun to burn, that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. On the other hand, the moment it begins to burn, the crime is consummated. Actually, the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. As far as the stage is concerned, the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage.

Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the arson as a consequence, unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn.

In US v. Valdez, the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. He lighted these, and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn, he ran away. The occupants of the room put out the fire. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson.

This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. But even then, the analysis in the case of US v. Valdez is correct. This is because, in determining whether the felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, or the stages of execution of the felony. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony, it is beyond the attempted stage. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. If the felony did not result, frustrated.

The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. On the subjective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. If the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummated.

The trouble is that, in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase, the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender, but also his belief. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. This was applied in the case of US v. Valdez, where the offender, having already put kerosene on the jute sacks, lighted the same, he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread, so he ran away. That act demonstrated that in his mind, he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.

The ruling in the case of US v. Valdez is still correct. But in the case of People v. Garcia, the situation is different. Here, the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party, the house being a nipa hut, the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. But the torch burned out.

In that case, you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime.

The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. It is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn.

There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage, like physical injuries. One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6, if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms, but before he could throw the blow, somebody holds that arm, there would be attempted physical injuries. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries.

On the other hand, he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow, the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.

The explanation is academic. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is no simple crime of physical injuries. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. If you say physical injuries, you do not know which article to apply. This being so, you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed.


Questions & Answers

1. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries?

If there is no result, you do not know. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity; otherwise, the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. Therefore, the commentator’s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. You cannot classify the physical injuries.

2. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. After the surgery, B became more handsome. What crime is committed? Is it attempted, frustrated or consummated?

The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. When there is deformity, you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. In order that in law, a deformity can be said to exist, three factors must concur:

(1) The injury should bring about the ugliness;

(2) The ugliness must be visible;

(3) The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process.

Along this concept of deformity in law, the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In law, what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. It is consummated. In determining whether a felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, you have to consider the manner of committing the felony, the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. There is no real hard and fast rule.

Elements of the crime

In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. For the crime of estafa to be consummated, there must be misappropriation already done, so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. If there is no damage yet, the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted.

On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa.

If the personal property was received by the offender, this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not receive the personal property, but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent, then there is no problem. That cannot be estafa; this is only theft or none at all.

In estafa, the offender receives the property; he does not take it. But in receiving the property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well.

When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage.

The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. Under American common law, the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. Without that carrying away, the larceny cannot be consummated.

In our concept of theft, the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is not a matter of carrying away. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved, such that he could exercise his own control on the thing.

Illustration:

I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. A stranger comes inside the room, gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. He can exercise his will over the wallet already, he can drop this on the floor, etc.
But as long as the wallet remains on the table, the theft is not yet consummated; there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. If he has started lifting the wallet, it is frustrated. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under, attempted.

“Taking” in the concept of theft, simply means exercising control over the thing.

If instead of the wallet, the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room, and the wallet is there. While taking the table out of the room, I apprehended him. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet, not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern, it is the confines of this room that is the container. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room, the taking is not complete.

A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. He opened it found some valuables inside. He took the valuables, put them in his pocket and was arrested. In this case, theft is consummated.

But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest, and before he could leave the room, he was apprehended, there is frustrated theft.

If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room, as long as the object has not been brought out of that room, or from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. Diño compared with People v. Adio and People v. Espiritu.

In US v. Diño, the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor, they were checked at the checkpoint, so they were not able to leave the compound. It was held that what was committed was frustrated Theft.

In People v. Espiritu, the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft.

The emphasis, which was erroneously laid in some commentaries, is that, in both cases, the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. But why is it that in one, it is frustrated and in the other, it is consummated?

In the case of US v. Diño, the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned, it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound, the taking is not complete. On the other hand, in the case of People v. Espiritu, what were taken were hospital linens. These were taken from a warehouse. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control.

This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar, the offender, after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. If the crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it out, it was consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take, the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. As far as the crime committed is concerned, the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft.

Illustration:

A and B are neighbors. One evening, A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. The crime is consummated theft. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop, it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. Hence, the crime was already consummated, and being consummated, the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned.

When the receptacle is locked or sealed, and the offender broke the same, in lieu of theft, the crime is robbery with force upon things. However, that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things.


Nature of the crime itself

In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide, homicide, and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. Under the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.

If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result.

An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage.


CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY

Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

(1) There is an agreement.
(2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two kinds of conspiracy:

(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and
(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.


Question & Answer

Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal, will your answer be different?

There is no crime committed. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code.

When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable.

When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.

Illustration:

A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion.

This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability.

Illustration:

Three persons plan to rob a bank. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind.

We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. This was the ruling in People v. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9.

Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it, the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the co-conspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously, indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective.

Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same.

In People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or speculations.

In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective.

When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each other.

Illustrations:

A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable.

A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50,000.00. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. In the evening of that same day, the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. Unfortunately, the police were caught in traffic causing their delay, so that when they reached the place, B had already killed A. In this case, there was no proposal but a conspiracy. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. This is just a preparatory act, and his desistance negates criminal liability.

Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.

As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.

The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness, the law shall reward him for doing so.”

Where there are several persons who participated, like in a killing, and they attacked the victim simultaneously, so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had, all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible.
Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal criminal responsibility.


Question & Answer

There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. When they fled, a victim was found dead. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known?

There is collective responsibility here. Without the principle of conspiracy, nobody would be prosecuted; hence, there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim.

There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus, acting out a common criminal intent.

Illustration:

A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. On several occasions, they even visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and C became hostile with one another. One day, D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned about this, they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. When A looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that conspiracy was present.

The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. In the case of People v. Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy, all are principals.

Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy, a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower.
For example, there was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. There, the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. The taxi driver agreed but said, “I will bring you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later”. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. At most, what he only extended was his cooperation. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice.

A, B, and C, under the influence of marijuana, broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. They ransacked the house. A got a colored TV, B saw a camera and took that, and C found a can of salmon and took that. In the crime of robbery with force upon things, the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him.
In Siton v. CA, it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death