Dear PAO,

Can a bystander be held liable as a co-conspirator in a crime? I saw on the news that a man, Z, will also be charged with the murder of X. It appears that W and Y are the ones who attacked X, which caused the latter’s death. Z did not take part in the actual attack. According to the alleged witness, Z was at the scene of the attack and stood there and did nothing to help X. I believe that for this reason alone, he is implicated in X’s murder. Is that correct?

Bruno

Dear Bruno,

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code describes the concept of conspiracy under our law. As specifically stated therein:

“Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit the crime. – Conspiracy and proposal to commit the crime are punishable only in cases where the law specifically provides a punishment for it.

“A conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it.

“There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a crime proposes its execution to another person or other persons.” (Emphasis supplied)

If conspiracy is clearly established, all those proven to have participated in the crime will be held accountable because “the act of one is the act of all.” We would like to emphasize that participation does not necessarily mean “giving a helping hand” to the commission of the crime. There are times when inaction can be considered part of the commission of the crime if there is a concrete showing that the presence or inaction of a party extended some form of assistance in the full commission of the crime.

In the situation you mentioned, we hold that Z can validly be implicated as a co-conspirator in X’s murder only if there is concrete evidence to establish that his presence provided “a helping hand” or “moral assistance” to W and Y. As the Supreme Court explained, mere presence cannot lead to his involvement in the commission of a crime unless it is clearly established that his overt acts demonstrate cooperation in the execution of the criminal plan. To be sure, Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin explained in People of the Philippines v. Bernie Raguro et al. (GR 224301, July 30, 2019):

“xxx Conspiracy could not be inferred from the fact that he was merely present at the scene of the crime. He must at least be shown to have committed an overt act which indicated his acquiescence in the common criminal plan to kill his victims which animated the attack through the others, such an overt act by de Mesa, to be sufficient for implicating him as a co-conspirator must go beyond a mere preparatory act.

“The nature of the open act is well explained in People v. Lizada:

“An overt or external act is defined as a physical activity or act indicating an intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which, if carried to its full completion, following its natural course, without being frustrated by external causes. obstacles, nor through the spontaneous resistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete crime. the preparatory acts have never ceased to be equivocal, and this is necessarily so, regardless of its stated intent. the crime, or an overt act, or before any part of the crime itself has been committed, and this because so long as the quality remains equivocal, no one can say with certainty what the intention of the accused is. It is necessary that the open act was the final step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was “the first or a subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations have been made”. The act done must not be the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt has a causal relationship with the intended crime. In Viada’s words, the manifest facts must have an immediate and necessary connection with the crime. (Bold underlining is provided for emphasis)”

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

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)