Crim I Mod 3

Liability in Proposal

If the other person has not yet agreed, only the proponent is liable if the proposal to commit than crime is punishable. If not punishable, then no criminal liability

Case of PP v. Bagano

In conspiracy, participation need not be determined and is immaterial, for the act of one is the act of all. For conspiracy to exist, at the time of the commission, the accused was united in purpose and its execution. Proof of an actual planning of the crime is not needed. Co-conspirators are not necessarily principals, hence each one's degree of participation need not be determined

Requisites in Conspiracy

1. Agreement Express Implied 2. Participation (No conspiracy without participation, in rare situations, less penalties for minimal participation) Active Moral Support

Special Complex Crime

Indivisible. All conspirators are liable for the special crime committed which resulted from the agreement to commit the crime, which was the main objective of the conspiracy. other crimes committed on the occasion of its commission will be absorbed and be treated as ordinary aggravating circumstance

Case of PP v. Maralit and Pasia

Lending moral, if not material aid during the commission of the offense may make a person liable as conspirator and therefore makes one equally liable for the crime.

Case of People v. Canturia

Members of a band who committed rape during a robbery are liable for Robbery with Rape; others who were UNAWARE of the rape are liable only for Robbery in Band.

Case of PP v. Compo

Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Conspiracy

2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Liability in Conspiracy

Express - actual written or explicit agreement w/ actual participation (either principal or accomplice) -liable for crime agreed upon -liable for forseeable crime w/ moral support Implied - meeting of minds can be deduced from actions w/ actual participation -liable for crime agreed upon -liable for forseeable crime w/ moral support -must be compelling reason

Implied Conspiracy

There is no express agreement of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy can be implied from the acts of the participants or the perpetrators

Case of PP v. Bangcado

Without conspiracy, the offenders are liable only for their own individual acts.

Proposal

the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons

Case of PP v. Garcia

where proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking and doubt created as to whether the accused acted as principal or accomplice, the balance tips for the milder form of criminal liability of an accomplice

Wheel Conspiracy

All participants are connected to the main man. All participant take orders from the main man

Case of PP v. Bongos citing PPv. Verceles

Robbery with Rape even if rape is not agreed upon and if the others did not commit the rape.

Case of PP v. Nierras

Strictly speaking, as co-conspirators, they should be punished as co-principals. However, since their participation was not absolutely indispensable to the consummation of the murder, the rule that the court should favor the milder form of liability may be applied to them

Is conspiring to commit treason punished even if the treason did not push through?

Yes, because the conspiracy of treason in itself is a crime

Regalado, J in the Case of People v. Magdamit

all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof of preventing the killing

Chain or Ladder Conspiracy

each participant performs a crime not centrally connected but each crime is a step or link to other crimes.

Conspiracy Theory

even if the agreement pertains only to one crime, the theory extends even to other crimes not agreed upon provided they are foreseeable in the crime agreed upon

Principal by Inducement

if one was a principal who gave the order, he has already done his participation and is liable

Primary intent is to kill

no special complex crime All liable for killing, only those who robbed liable for robbing

Primary intent is to rob

special complex crime

Quantum of Proof in Conspiracy

Direct proof is not required, positive and conclusive evidence required.

Victim in Homicide need not victim of Robbery

Can be with homicide as long as the killer is robber, even if victim is co-robber or a passer-by hit because of robbery. Not homicide if another person killed robber.

Doctrine of Limited Liability

Conspiracy All participants will be liable for the act of all (act of one is act of all) No Conspiracy A participant will only be liable for his own act. (Doctrine of limited liability)

Article 8 of RPC

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Conspiracy and Proposal punished as a crime

Conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion or sedition or coup d'etat (also Terrorism) Proposal to commit treason, rebellion or coup d'etat (also Terrorism )

Other Special Complex Crimes

Treat similar to complex robbery, check intent, kidnapping with rape is different from rape through forcible abduction, if kidnapping with homicide, rape will be an ordinary aggravating circumstance

Case of People v. Aspili; People v. Patulot

We have already ruled that the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the rape being considered merely as an aggravating circumstance.

ARTICLE 296. Definition of a Band and Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof

When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band (cuadrilla). Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.

Case of Sim v. CA

When the malefactors have a common purpose and were united in its execution. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility