Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the
offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of
interest. But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown
to have performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy,
for without being shown to do so none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and
each may only be held responsible for the results of his own acts. ( Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Vs.
People
of
the
Philippines
G.R. No. 220598/G.R. No. 220953)
and
Sandiganbayan/Benigno
B.
Aguas
Vs.
Sandigabayan
In the present case the prosecution did not muster the requisite of proving an overt act either
express or implied that the accused (Tay Loko), conspired to illegally detain the complainant.
1. The affidavit of the complainant did not show the overt acts of the accused, the
excerpts from the complainants judicial affidavit narrated the following:
Clearly, the narration of the complainant in her judicial affidavit and to the investigating office
did not specify the overt act of the accused. Aside from this sweeping allegation of conspiracy,
the information failed to mention any act as to how petitioner had taken part in the in the alleged
conspiracy.
CONCLUSION
The group concludes that the case should be for the failure of the complainant to prove
conspiracy.