Lawyerly

GR No. 200053

2013-10-23

REYES, J.

Fourth. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[31] Stated otherwise, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[32]

GR No. 176061

2011-07-04

PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. [33] "Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy [for] it may be deduced [from] the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime." [34]

GR No. 187534

2011-04-04

PEOPLE v. DIMA MONTANIR

PERALTA, J.

Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design.[41] Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.[42] Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law, charged with intending the result.[43] Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit.[44]

GR No. 188601

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA

VELASCO JR., J.

Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law, charged with intending the result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit.[49] x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 168446

2009-09-18

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO CRUZ

PERALTA, J.

Before tackling the respective contentions of the appellants, this Court finds it apt to discuss the nature of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The corresponding provisions and ruling[32] of this Court are as follows: Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, reads:

GR Nos. 158694-96

2009-03-13

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON

BRION, J.

The burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy rests on the prosecution, but settled jurisprudence holds that conspiracy may be proven other than by direct evidence.[66] In People v. Pagalasan,[67] the Court expounded on why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary:After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[68]

GR No. 177276

2008-08-20

GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[20] Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary.[21] Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack, so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.[22]

GR No. 145927

2007-08-24

SIMON FERNAN v. PEOPLE

VELASCO, JR., J.

After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[50]

GR No. 175925

2007-08-17

PEOPLE v. JOSE BARCENAL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Contrary to the postulation of the appellants, the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of conspiracy. There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[23] Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted with common purpose and design. The concerted acts of appellants and the other assailants showed unanimity in design, intent and execution of the attack against the victim. Each performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose to bring about the suffering and death of Nelson. Indubitably, conspiracy was established.

GR No. 134203

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. ELVIE EJANDRA

PER CURIAM

For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely, (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped and detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.[78]

GR No. 137519

2004-03-16

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO MARTINEZ

PER CURIAM

kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) the actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty and (c) the motive of the accused to exact ransom for the release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be proved by words or overt acts before, during or after the kidnapping and detention of the victim.[17] Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed.[18] Based on the evidence on record, the following facts were indisputably established: (1) Lopez was abducted on August 4, 1996 by five men including appellants Martinez and Tagle; (2) the victim was detained in the house of appellant Martinez against his will and was deprived

GR No. 145034-35

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. PEDRO INTONG Y AGAPAY

VITUG, J.

The crime has been witnessed by the nine-year-old brother of the victim. Under Article 266-B(3), the penalty of death may be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance of the crime having been witnessed "in full view" by any of the victim's relatives "within the third civil degree of consanguinity." While Gino is a full-blood brother of the victim, or a relative within the second degree, this qualifying circumstance, however, has not been alleged in the Information so as to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires the recital in the charge or information of aggravating circumstances. The commission of the crime prior to the effectivity of the Rules on 1 December 2000 does not deprive the appellant of its favorable consequence.[29]

GR No. 120409

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMSON PICKRELL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In People vs. Pagalasan,[27] this Court ruled that to warrant the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is ransom for the victim or other person for the release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom may be proved by his words and overt acts before, during and after the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the law is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases from captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a condition for the release of the victim.

GR No. 140895

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. ALMA BISDA Y GAUPO

PER CURIAM

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by RA No. 7659).[27] For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely, (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[28] If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.[29] The word "female" in paragraph 1(4) of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code refers to the gender of the victim and not of the offender.

GR No. 140895

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. ALMA BISDA Y GAUPO

PER CURIAM

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[39] In People v. Pagalasan,[40] this Court held that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.[41] Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Conspiracy once found, continues until the object of it has been accomplished unless abandoned or broken up.[42] To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[43] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[44]

	GR No. 200053 2013-10-23	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO JOSE Y LAGUA REYES, J.
Fourth. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[31] Stated otherwise, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[32]
	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. [33] "Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy [for] it may be deduced [from] the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime." [34]
	GR No. 187534 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. DIMA MONTANIR PERALTA, J.
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design.[41] Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.[42] Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law, charged with intending the result.[43] Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit.[44]
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law, charged with intending the result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit.[49] x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 168446 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO CRUZ PERALTA, J.
Before tackling the respective contentions of the appellants, this Court finds it apt to discuss the nature of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The corresponding provisions and ruling[32] of this Court are as follows: Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, reads:
	GR Nos. 158694-96 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON BRION, J.
The burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy rests on the prosecution, but settled jurisprudence holds that conspiracy may be proven other than by direct evidence.[66] In People v. Pagalasan,[67] the Court expounded on why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary:After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[68]
	GR No. 177276 2008-08-20	GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[20] Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary.[21] Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack, so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.[22]
	GR No. 145927 2007-08-24	SIMON FERNAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[50]
	GR No. 175925 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE BARCENAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Contrary to the postulation of the appellants, the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of conspiracy. There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[23] Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted with common purpose and design. The concerted acts of appellants and the other assailants showed unanimity in design, intent and execution of the attack against the victim. Each performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose to bring about the suffering and death of Nelson. Indubitably, conspiracy was established.
	GR No. 134203 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ELVIE EJANDRA PER CURIAM
For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely, (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped and detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.[78]
	GR No. 137519 2004-03-16	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) the actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty and (c) the motive of the accused to exact ransom for the release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be proved by words or overt acts before, during or after the kidnapping and detention of the victim.[17] Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed.[18] Based on the evidence on record, the following facts were indisputably established: (1) Lopez was abducted on August 4, 1996 by five men including appellants Martinez and Tagle; (2) the victim was detained in the house of appellant Martinez against his will and was deprived
	GR No. 145034-35 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. PEDRO INTONG Y AGAPAY VITUG, J.
The crime has been witnessed by the nine-year-old brother of the victim. Under Article 266-B(3), the penalty of death may be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance of the crime having been witnessed "in full view" by any of the victim's relatives "within the third civil degree of consanguinity." While Gino is a full-blood brother of the victim, or a relative within the second degree, this qualifying circumstance, however, has not been alleged in the Information so as to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires the recital in the charge or information of aggravating circumstances. The commission of the crime prior to the effectivity of the Rules on 1 December 2000 does not deprive the appellant of its favorable consequence.[29]
	GR No. 120409 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. WILLIAMSON PICKRELL CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People vs. Pagalasan,[27] this Court ruled that to warrant the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is ransom for the victim or other person for the release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom may be proved by his words and overt acts before, during and after the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the law is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases from captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a condition for the release of the victim.
	GR No. 140895 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. ALMA BISDA Y GAUPO PER CURIAM
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by RA No. 7659).[27] For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely, (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[28] If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.[29] The word "female" in paragraph 1(4) of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code refers to the gender of the victim and not of the offender.
	GR No. 140895 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. ALMA BISDA Y GAUPO PER CURIAM
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[39] In People v. Pagalasan,[40] this Court held that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.[41] Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Conspiracy once found, continues until the object of it has been accomplished unless abandoned or broken up.[42] To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[43] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[44]

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN