CONSPIRACY (Criminal Law)

Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers on Conspiracy (Criminal Law)

QUESTION (2012)

No. IX. a. Define conspiracy. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 

When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is conspiracy.

QUESTION (2008)

No. XI. Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 

No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander of the vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence.

QUESTION (2012)

No. IX. b. Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 

Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired,
conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide - if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.


Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

CASE DIGEST: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852

Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852

Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)

Facts:

On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:

Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the offender be ralted 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. In Section 47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. 

CASE DIGEST: People v. Jaime Jose, G.R. No. L-28232

Title: People v. Jaime Jose, G.R. No. L-28232

Subject Matter: Conspiracy

Facts:

On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Cañal conspired together, confederated with and mutually helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena “Maggie” dela Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.

Having established the element of conspiracy, the trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and sentences each of them to the death penalty.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the element of conspiracy.

Held:

No, the trial court’s ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the accused is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired to commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows: appellants Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is likewise convicted with four death penalties and to indemnify the victim of the sum of P10,000 in each of the four crimes. The case against Rogelio Cañal was dismissed only in so far as the criminal liability is concerned due to his death in prison prior to promulgation of judgment.