Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

— C on sp i r ac y an d
p r o po sa l t o c o m m i t f e lony ar e p u n i s h a b l e onl y i n th e ca se s i n
w h i c h th e la w s p e c i a l l y p r o v i d e s a p e n a l t y the re f o r .
A c o n s p i r a c y e x ist s w h e n tw o or mor e p e r so n s co m e to an
a g r e e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g th e c o m m i s s i o n of a f elo n y an d d ec id e
to c o m m i t it.
The r e i s p r o po s a l w h e n th e p e r so n wh o ha s d e c i d e d t o
c o m m i t a f e lo n y p r o p o s e s its e x e c u t i o n to so m e othe r p er s o n
or p e r s o n s .

1
 Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
TO COMMIT FELONY

IMPORTANT WORD S AN D P HR A S E S .
"Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony."
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are two different
acts or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a felony, and (2)
proposal to commit a felony.
2. "Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor."
Unless there is a specific provision in the Revised Penal
Code providing a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit
a felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.

Conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically

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. (Art. 8) Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except
when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor as in treason
(Art. 115), rebellion (Art. 136) and sedition (Art. 141). The crime
of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indictable
offense in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Buanco, 14 Phil. 472 ;
U.S. vs. 37 Phil. 599 , 614 ; People vs. Asaad, 55 Phil.
697) An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from
the viewpoint of morality, but as long as the conspirators do not
perform overt acts in fu rtherance of their malevolent design,
the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility
of the public remains undisturbed. However, when in resolute
execution of a common scheme, a felony is committed by two or
more malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy assu mes pivotal
importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators.
(People vs. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759)

General Rule:
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.
Exception:
They are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor.

2
 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO Art 8
COMMIT FELONY

Reason for the rule.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory
acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible
except in rare and exceptional cases.

The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere

conspiracy Arts. and
in
Art. Conspiracy xxxto commit treason — Penalty. — The
conspiracy x x x to commit the crime of treason shall be punished x
x x by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos x x x.
Art. 136. Conspiracy x x x to commit coup rebellion or
insurrection. — The conspiracy x x x to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which
shall not exceed 8,000 pesos.
The conspiracy x x x to commit rebellion or insurrection shall
be punished x x x by prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos xxx. (As amended by Rep.
Act No. 6968)
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring
to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision mayor in
its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (As amended
by P.D. No. 942)

Treason, coup d'etat rebellion or sedition should not be

actually committed.
The conspirators should not actually commit treason, coup d'etat
rebellion or sedition. It is sufficient that two or more persons agree
and decide to commit treason, rebellion or sedition.
If they commit, say, treason, they will be held liable for treason,
and the conspiracy which they had before committing treason is only
a manner of incurring criminal liability. It is not a separate offense.

Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a

manner of incurring criminal liability.
When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it
is not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that
is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

3
 Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY

Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes of treason,

rebellion and sedition, but any of them is actually committed, the
conspiracy is not a separate it is only a manner of incurring
criminal liability, that is, all the conspirators who carried out their
plan and personally took part in its execution are equally liable. The
offenders are liable for treason, rebellion, or sedition, as the case may
be, and the conspiracy is absorbed.
When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability,
it is not punishable as a separate offense.

Illustrations of conspiracy as felony and as a manner of

incurring criminal liability.
1. A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take arms
against the government with the help of their followers. Even if
they did not carry out their plan to overthrow the government,
A and B are liable for conspiracy to commit rebellion under Art.
136 of the Revised Penal Code.
But if A and B and their followers did rise publicly and
take arms against the government to overthrow it, thereby
committing rebellion, their conspiracy is not a felony. They are
liable for rebellion and their conspiracy is only a manner of
incurring criminal liability for rebellion.
2. A, B, and C, after h avin g conceived a criminal plan, got
together, agreed and decided to kill D. If A, B and C failed to
carry out the plan for some reason or another, they are not
liable for having conspired against D, because the crime they
conspired to commit, which is murder, is not treason, rebellion
or sedition.
But if they carried out the plan and personally took part in its
execution which resulted in the killing of D, they are all liable for
murder, even if A merely acted as guard outside the house where
D was killed and B merely held the arms of D when C stabbed him
to death. Their conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal
liability for murder. It is not an offense, not only because a crime
was committed after the conspiracy, but also because conspiracy to
commit murder is not punished in the Revised Penal Code.

4
 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
Art. 8
COMMIT FELONY

Indications of conspiracy.
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing another part so as
to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted
action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in
concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy. (People
vs. No. L-35700, Oct. 53 SCRA 246, 254)
Thus, an accused has been held as a co-conspirator as the cir•
cumstances of his participation indubitably showed unity of purpose
and unity in the execution of the unlawful acts, gleaned from that
fact that he knew of the plot to assassinate the victim as he too had
been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job; he also knew
exactly the place where the killing was to take place and also the date
and approximate time of the assault. (People vs. Cantuba, G.R. No.
79811 , March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 289, 298)

For a collective responsibility among the accused to be estab•

lished, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them
acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design
to kill their victim, and although only one of them may have actually
stabbed the victim, the act of that one is deemed to be the act of all.
(People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 90641 , Feb. SCRA 794,
798)

The acts of the defendants must show a common design.

It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity
of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective. Here,
appellants did not act with a unity of purpose. Even assuming that
appellants have joined together in the killing, such circumstances
alone do not satisfy the requirement of a conspiracy because the rule
is that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof
of conspiracy. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly
as the commission of the offense itself. Obedience to a command does
not necessarily show concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of
the conspirators that show their common design.
Although the defendants are relatives and had acted with some
degree of simultaneity in attacking their victim, nevertheless, this

5
Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY

fact alone does not prove conspiracy. (People vs. No.

Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172, 186-188)

People vs.
(167 439)

Facts: The deceased Miranda, a 25-year-old retardate, and the

accused Pugay were friends. On the evening of May 19, 1982, while
a town fiesta was being held in the public the group of accused
Pugay and Samson saw the deceased walking nearby, and started mak•
ing fun of him. Not content with what they were doing, accused Pugay
suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of a wheel
and poured its contents on the body of Miranda. Then, the accused
Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.
Held: Where there is nothing in the records showing that there
was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose between the
two accused immediately before the commission of the crime, where
there was no animosity between the deceased and the accused and it
is clear that the accused merely wanted to make fun of the deceased,
the respective criminal responsibility of the accused arising from
different acts directed against the deceased is individual and not
collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by
him.

Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection, not

required in conspiracy.
Unlike in evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time
must elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection and
for the perpetrator to deliberate on the consequences of his intended
deed (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 330), conspiracy arises on the very instant
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and
forthwith decide to pursue it. Once this assent is established, each
and everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the
crime, committed by anyone of them. (People vs. Monroy, et 104
Phil. 759)

Art. of the Revised Penal Code punishing conspiracy.

Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
— The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a
fine ranging from two hundred to six thousand pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon:

6
 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
Art. 8
COMMIT FELONY

Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement

or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the
form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or com•
merce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in
the market.
2.

3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer,

shall combine, conspire or agree with any person x
x x for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price
of any such merchandise

Requisites of conspiracy:
That two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony;
and
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.
1st element — agreement presupposes meeting of the minds
of two or more persons.
Thus, the fact that a document is discovered purporting to be
a commission appointing the defendant an officer of armed forces
against the Government does not prove conspiracy, because it was
not shown that defendant received or accepted that commission. (U.S.
vs. Villarino, 5 Phil. 697)
2nd element — the agreement must refer to the commission of
a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect,
to bring about what has already been conceived
and determined.
Thus, the mere fact that the defendant met and aired some
complaints, showing discontent with the Government over some real
or fancied evils, is not sufficient. (U.S. vs. Figueras, 2 Phil. 491)
3rd element — the conspirators have made up their minds to
commit the crime. There must be a determina•
tion to commit the crime of treason, rebellion
or sedition.

7
Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY

Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime
and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy can
be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when
the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interests. It is not necessary to show that all the
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. Conspiracy renders
all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the
act of one conspirator is the act of all. (People vs. Buntag, G.R. No.
123070, April 14, 2004)

Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy.

Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled
is the rule that to estabish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the
scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy
transcends companionship.
The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
did not have any participation in the commission of the crime and
must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the
crime as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient
to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive
act in furtherance of the crime.
Neither was it proven that their act of running away with An•
tonio was an act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The
ratiocination of the trial court that "their presence provided encour•
agement and sense of security to is devoid of any factual
basis. Such finding is not supported by the evidence on record and
cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspiracy. (People
vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004)

8
 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
Art. 8
COMMIT FELONY

The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere

proposal in Arts. and
Art. 115. proposal to commit treason — Penalty. — The
proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished
by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos.

Art. 136. proposal to commit coup d'etat rebellion or

insurrection. — The proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which
shall not exceed 8,000 pesos.

The proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be

punished x x x by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine
not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (As amended by Rep. Act. No. 6968)

Treason or rebellion should not be actually committed.

In proposal to commit treason or rebellion, the crime of treason
or rebellion should not be actually committed by reason of the
proposal.
If the crime of treason or rebellion was actually committed after
and because of the proposal, then the proponent would be liable for
treason or rebellion as a principal by inducement (Art. 17, par. 2),
and in such case the proposal is not a felony.

Requisites of
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.

There is no criminal proposal when —

1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the
felony.
Example: A desires that the present government be
overthrown. But A is afraid to do it himself with others. A then
suggests the overthrowing of the government to some desperate
people who will do it at the slightest provocation. In this case,
A is not liable for proposal to commit rebellion, because A has
not decided to commit it.

9
 Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
TO COMMIT FELONY

2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.

In the above example, note that there was merely a
a decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
Example: A conceived the idea of overthrowing the
present government. A called several of his trusted followers
and instructed them to go around the country and secretly to
organize groups and to convince them of the necessity of having
a new government. Note that what A proposed in this case is
not the execution of the crime of rebellion, but the performance
of preparatory acts for the commission of rebellion. Therefore,
there is no criminal proposal.

Problem:
If the proponents of rebellion desist before any rebellious act is
actually performed by the would-be material executors, inform the
authorities and aid in the arrest of their fellow plotters, should the
proponents be exempt?
According to Albert, the proponents should be exempt from the
penalties provided for criminal proposals and conspiracies, for the
law would rather prevent than punish crimes and encouragement
should be given to those who hearken to the voice of conscience.
But once a proposal to commit rebellion is made by the propo•
nent to another person, the crime of proposal to commit rebellion
is consummated and the desistance of the proponent cannot legally
exempt him from criminal liability.

It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is

made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.
Note that what constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason
or rebellion is the making of proposal. The law does not require that
the proposal be accepted by the person to whom the proposal is made.
If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit treason or rebellion,
because there would be an agreement and a decision to commit it.

Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer.

One who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to
perform his duties, but the offer is rejected by the public officer, is

10
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Art. 9
ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY

11
liable for attempted bribery. (U.S. vs. Gloria, 4 Phil. 341) Note that while it is true that the act
performed by the offender is in the nature of a proposal, and is not punishable because it does
not involve treason or rebellion, nevertheless, the proposal in this case is an overt act of the
crime of corruption of public officer. (See Art. 212)

The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the
security of the State or economic security.
Treason is against the external security of the State. Coup d'etat, rebellion and sedition are
against internal security. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade are against
economic security.

Reason why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is punishable in

crimes against external and internal security of the State.
In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and the cul• prit cannot find in the
success of his work any impunity. Whereas, in crimes against the external and internal
security of the State, if the culprit succeeds in his criminal enterprise, he would obtain the
power and therefore impunity for the crime committed. (Albert)

12