CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK ONE)

The concepts of conspiracy and proposal in criminal law, as provided in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines, are foundational doctrines in determining the extent of criminal liability and the participation of individuals in the commission of crimes.

I. CONSPIRACY

Definition (Article 8, RPC)

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to act in concert towards its commission. It is the unity of purpose and intention in the execution of the criminal design.

Requisites of Conspiracy

Plurality of Persons – At least two individuals must agree to commit a felony.
Unity of Purpose – A common criminal design or plan must exist.
Intent to Commit a Felony – The agreement must be intentional and directed towards an act punishable under the RPC.

Kinds of Conspiracy

Conspiracy as a Mode of Committing a Felony
- Conspiracy is a mode of liability where all conspirators are held equally liable as co-principals, regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime.
- Example: In murder, even the lookout is held liable if a conspiracy is proven.
Conspiracy as a Crime Itself
- Certain crimes explicitly penalize mere conspiracy without requiring the actual commission of the felony. These include:
  - Treason (Article 115, RPC)
  - Coup d’état (Article 134-A, RPC)
  - Rebellion (Article 136, RPC)
  - Sedition (Article 141, RPC)

Key Principles on Conspiracy

Direct Proof Not Always Necessary
Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime that show a common purpose or design.
Collective Responsibility
- Once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is deemed the act of all.
- Exception: A conspirator who clearly abandons the conspiracy prior to the commission of the crime may not be held liable.
Conspiracy vs. Mere Knowledge
- Mere knowledge or passive acquiescence to the crime does not establish conspiracy. There must be active cooperation or assent to the criminal design.
Liability Despite Non-Participation in Actual Execution
- A conspirator who did not physically participate in the commission of the felony may still be held liable if their role was integral to the criminal design.

Withdrawal from Conspiracy

A conspirator may avoid liability if they:

Clearly and Voluntarily Abandon the Conspiracy – The withdrawal must be unequivocal and timely.
Prevent the Crime's Commission – If the conspirator’s actions directly thwart the execution of the crime, they may not be held liable.

II. PROPOSAL

Definition (Article 8, RPC)

Proposal occurs when a person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to another individual.

Requisites of Proposal

Decisive Intent – The proposer must have the definitive intent to commit the crime.
Communication to Another Person – The proposal must be expressed and communicated to another individual.
Proposal Must Relate to a Felony Punishable by Law – Mere ideas or plans to commit an act that is not a felony do not constitute a proposal.

Proposal Distinguished from Conspiracy

Aspect	Proposal	Conspiracy
Nature	One person proposes to another.	Two or more persons agree to commit a felony.
Requisite Agreement	No agreement yet.	Agreement is established.
Stage of Execution	Preliminary stage.	May be a preliminary stage or during the commission of the felony.
Punishability	Punishable only in specific felonies.	Punishable as a mode of liability or as a crime itself.

Crimes Where Proposal is Punished

Similar to conspiracy, mere proposal is punishable only for certain crimes under the RPC:

Treason (Article 115, RPC)
Proposal to levy war against the Government or adhere to its enemies is punishable.
Coup d’état, Rebellion, and Sedition
Proposing to incite or commit these crimes constitutes criminal liability.

III. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL

Criminal Intent

Both conspiracy and proposal require a clear and unequivocal criminal intent (mens rea).
Criminal liability attaches to these acts even without the actual commission of the intended felony in certain cases.

Evidentiary Issues

Direct evidence is rare; circumstantial evidence plays a significant role in proving conspiracy.
Acts that demonstrate coordination, prearranged signals, or a shared plan can suffice to prove conspiracy.

Punishment and Penalty

Conspiracy and proposal are generally not punishable unless expressly penalized by law.
When conspiracy is a mode of liability, the penalty for all conspirators is the same as that for the principal actor.

Defenses Against Conspiracy and Proposal

Lack of Agreement – For conspiracy, absence of a meeting of minds negates liability.
No Specific Felony Proposed – In proposal, the absence of a clear intent to commit a specific felony defeats liability.
Abandonment or Withdrawal – Timely withdrawal from the agreement or conspiracy absolves liability.

Jurisprudential Applications

People v. Geronimo (1974)
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence; the collective acts of the accused can establish their common purpose.
People v. Agapinay (1986)
Mere presence at the crime scene does not establish conspiracy unless active participation or agreement is demonstrated.
People v. Lizada (2003)
Even if the act of one conspirator is more grievous than that of the others, all conspirators are held equally liable.

Summary

Conspiracy and proposal under the RPC emphasize the role of collective intent and pre-arranged agreements in establishing criminal liability. While both concepts hinge on the preparatory stages of criminal acts, their punishability is limited to specific instances. Understanding their distinctions and nuances is crucial in determining liability and defense strategies in criminal cases.