Lex Rex Ph


Agreed and decided to commit. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concern the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code

Concurred and affirmed.Cooperated and carried out the resolution.

People v Akiran
  • Concurred and affirmed. If someone fully concurred in the criminal resolution and affirmed their assent. 
  • Cooperated and carried out the resolution. When someone fully and directly cooperated and did their part to carry out the resolution of their co-accused. 

as defined in Buebos v. People

  • Inferred from common understanding of parties. Proof of agreement need not rest on direct evidence. The same can be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. 
  • Need no explicit agreement. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which the details of an illegal objective be carried out. 
  • Concerted action. Common design. Comspiracy sufficient if evidence proves the accused parties acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design. 
  • Act of one, act of all. Equally guilty. The act of one is the act of all and each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. 
  • Confederacy of purposeCoordinated movements, behavior during and after the crime. Established through the accused’s behavior contemporaneous or after the commission other crime, clearly indicating confederacy of purpose and concerted action.
  • It is very seldom that crimes are agreed upon through writing. Even if there’s no direct evidence showing prior agreement, doctrine is well settled that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit a crime. It is very seldom that prior agreement are demonstrable since it is very rare that criminal undertakings are agreed through writing.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Djumantan v. Domingo

Djumantan v. DomingoG.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995Full Text Link Lesson in ConstiEven though married to a Filipino abroad, a Foreigner must still follow due process for such marriage to be properly

Read More »

Ombudsman v. CA and Binay Jr. Digest

GR 217126-27, 10 Nov 2015 Facts Ombudsman Conchita issued a preventive suspension order (PSO) against Binay Jr. et al of Plunder and violation RA 3019 in connection with the Makati Parking Building.

Read More »

Marcos-Araneta vs. CA, Benedicto

Facts Irene Marcos Araneta alleged that she is a beneficiary of the shares of stocks of 2 corporations of Benedicto. She demanded reconveyance of 65% of the stockholdings but the alleged trustee,

Read More »

DBP vs. Hydro Resources (HRCC) Digest

Facts DBP and PNB foreclosed NMIC’s properties which made the former as the majority stockholder of the latter. NMIC then engaged the services of Hercon/HRCC. NMIC failed to pay Hercon/HRCC. After default

Read More »

Brown-Araneta vs. Araneta

Facts Juan and Michelle were married and had 2 minor children. They separated and the children remained in Michelle’s custody. Juan filed for a Petition for Custody of his children with prayer

Read More »

Arenas vs. Raymundo Digest

March 13, 1911 Facts Arenas et al delivered their jewelry to Perello for the latter to sell on commission. Instead of selling, Perello pledged the jewelry to the pawnshop of Raymundo, and

Read More »