Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove conspiracy

Dear PAO,

My cousin was assaulted a few weeks ago, and he is planning to file a complaint against three men, A, B, and C, because they allegedly conspired to commit the assault. B and C denied assaulting my cousin. According to them, it was only A who was responsible for the assault and the injuries that he sustained, and there is no direct proof that they conspired with A. My cousin’s friend, who was a few meters away from him at the time of the incident, said that while only A was the one who punched my cousin and hit him with a baseball bat, B held my cousin’s arms so my cousin was not able to fight back, and C kept shouting, encouraging and inciting A to punch my cousin. A also served as the lookout. Is it still possible to file the case against all three of them, not just against A, even if there is no direct proof of the conspiracy but only the surrounding circumstances witnessed by my cousin’s friend?

Harold

Dear Harold,

While commonly, only the perpetrator or the person who directly committed the crime is held responsible thereto, it bears stressing that if there is an allegation of conspiracy between two or more persons and the same is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the co-conspirators, regardless of the extent of their respective participation in the commission of the crime, may be held criminally liable as well. The concept of conspiracy is embodied in our Revised Penal Code, particularly:

“Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. – 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.”

Even though direct evidence is the most ideal kind of evidence to be presented in court, it is not the only kind of evidence that can be presented when prosecuting criminal cases. Circumstantial evidence is likewise acceptable, so long as it is clear and unequivocal. Especially in cases involving conspiracy where the specific agreement of the perpetrators to commit the crime is hardly ever established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of such a conspiracy may be utilized. As a corollary, as long as there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt, then circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the person so accused. (Section 4, Rule 133 of the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., likewise explained the following:

“x x x 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. Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, direct proof is not required. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be proved through the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of a felony, all the accused aiming at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another for the attainment of the same objective, their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Direct proof of a person in agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It is enough that at the time of the commission of a crime, all the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in their execution. Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all.” (People of the Philippines vs. Armando Caballero et al., GR 149028-30, April 2, 2003; emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, your cousin may pursue filing a complaint against A, B, and C if the surrounding circumstances relating to his assault, particularly the conduct of said perpetrators prior to, during, and after the commission of the assault, logically show the commonality of their criminal purpose or design. Moreover, if the commission of the crime is likewise established beyond reasonable doubt, then they will all be held criminally liable, as “the act of one is the act of all.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]