Conspiracy Crime Law Implied
In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, Jan 18, 2012 -The “evidence of a chain of circumstances,” to wit: that appellant went inside the house of Romines to ascertain that the victim was there; that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave the Dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; which they each fled after the stabbing, taken collectively, shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently, there was a conspiracy Crime in the commission of the crime.
Conspiracy Crime Examples
Conspiracy example law: It is immaterial whether the appellant acted as a principal or as an accomplice because the conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. the act of one is the act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally responsible for the crime (People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010).
To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must’ve performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof (People vs. Ebitz, G.R. No. 181635 Nov 15, 2010).
- Tort Law Examples – Law of Tort Cases and Criminal Law
- The motive in Criminal Law – Motive Definition in Criminal Law
- Decriminalization Law Example – Decriminalization Definition
- Stages criminal law Explain – Stages of Crime in Criminal Law
- Car Accident Attorney – What does a car accident lawyer do?
- Personal Injury Lawyer – Personal injury lawyers what they do?
To be held liable as a conspirator, it must also be shown that the accused performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy except in the case of the mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans the commission of a crime is liable as conspirator and principal by inducement (People vs. Compiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004, En banc).
Notwithstanding, the fact that one wasn’t at the crime scene, evidence proved that he was the mastermind of the criminal act or the principal by inducement. What’s important is that inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. The command or advice made by the principal by inducement was of such a nature that, without it, the crime wouldn’t have materialized (People vs. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011).
The suspect, Accused, unarmed, appeared in the company of his employer, and another person. His employer shot and killed the victim. The accused did nothing to prevent the killing. The accused fled together with his employer and another person. The fact that the accused appeared together with the employer and another and fled with them proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in the execution of the crime. However, there’s doubt as to whether the accused acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice.
Such doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability—that of a mere Confederate (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011). If the Suspect is armed at the time, he could be held liable as principal on the basis of implied.
The fact that the companion of the criminal actor is armed may mean that the former is supplying moral assistance to the latter. The armed presence of a conspiratorial companion may prove a sense of security and encouragement on the part of the material executor or may serve as deterrence against a possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002, En Banc).
B.P. Blg. 22 doesn’t expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such a rule may be applied supplementarily. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for the violation of BP Blg. 22 on the basis of conspiracy.
(Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005). The principal may be applied to RA No. 9262. Thus, a person (such as a mother-in-law), who has no marital, or dating relationship with the victim, can be held liable for violence against a woman on the basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008).
Anti-graft law – May a private person be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with
Whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information?
Answer: Yes. The death of the public officer doesn’t mean that the allegation of conspiracy between him and the private individual can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of the public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and a private individual (People vs. Go, GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014, en banc).