CONSPIRACY

Their concerted efforts were performed with closeness and coordination indicating their common
purpose to inflict injury on the victim. For conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not establish the actual
agreement which shows the preconceived plan, motive, interest or purpose in the commission of the
crime. Proof of publicly observable mutual agreement is not indispensable to establish conspiracy.
Hence, there is conspiracy where two of the accused held the victims hands and the third stabbed the
victim from behind. Conspiracy may be implied from the concerted action of the assailants in
confronting the victim. In the instant case, the prosecution satisfactorily established that Jemuel
twisted and pinned Jessies hands at the back, after which Charlie delivered the fatal blow.Since there
was conspiracy between the malefactors, the actual role played by each of them does not have to be
differentiated or segregated from the acts performed by the other accused. As a conspirator, each would
still be equally responsible for the acts of the other conspirators.

MULTIPLE LEVELS OF CONSPIRACIES EXPLAINED

Petitioners first argument denigrates as grave abuse of discretion the public respondents rejection of
the theory of overlapping conspiracies, which, in the abstract, depicts a picture of a conspirator in the
first level of conspiracy performing acts which implement, or in furtherance of, another conspiracy in
the next level of which the actor is not an active party. As the petitioners logic goes following this theory,
respondent Jinggoy is not only liable for conspiring with former President Estrada in the acquisition of
ill-gotten wealth from jueteng under par. (a) of the amended information. He has also a culpable
connection with the conspiracy, under par. (b), in the diversion of the tobacco excise tax and in
receiving commissions and kickbacks from the purchase by the SSS and GSIS of Belle Corporation
shares and other illegal sources under par. (c) and (d), albeit, he is not so named in the last three
paragraphs. And since the central figure in the overlapping conspiracies, i.e., President Estrada, is
charged with a capital offense, all those within the conspiracy loop would be considered charged with
the same kind of non-bailable offense.

Explaining its point, petitioner cites People v. Castelo which, as here, also involves multiple levels of
conspiracies. Just like in the present case where the lead accused is a former President no less, the
prime suspect in Castelo was also a powerful high-ranking government official a former Judge who
later rose to hold, in a concurrent capacity, the positions of Secretary of Justice and Secretary of
National Defense, to be precise. In Castelo, charges and countercharges were initially hurled by and
between Castelo and Senator Claro Recto, who was then planning to present Manuel Monroy as star
witness against Castelo in a scandal case. Castelo left the Philippines for Korea. While away, someone
shot Monroy dead. Evidence pointed to a conspiracy led by a certain Ben Ulo (who appears to be the
mastermind) and a group of confidential agents of the Department of National Defense, one of whom
was the triggerman. Coincidentally, Ben Ulo was a close bodyguard of Castelo. In the end, the Solicitor
General tagged Ben Ulo (not Castelo) as the central figure in the conspiracy. This notwithstanding, the
Court held Castelo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder, because only he had a motive for
desiring Monroys demise. The conspiracy between Castelo and Ben Ulo was then determined to be
overlapping with the conspiracy between Ben Ulo and the confidential agents, one of whom was the
triggerman.

Further explaining the theory of overlapping conspiracies, petitioner cites the ruling in People v. Ty Sui
Wong, featuring a love triangle involving a certain Victor and Mariano, each out to win the heart of
Ruby. Victor left Manila for Mindanao. While Victor was away, the dead body of Mariano was found
with multiple stab wounds in a dark alley in Pasay. Evidence pointed to a conspiracy among Sampaloc
hoodlums who had no direct link with Victor. However, one of the neighbors of the Sampaloc
hoodlums was a classmate of Victor. In the end, on the basis of interlocking confessions, the Court
found Victor and his classmate together with all the Sampaloc hoodlums guilty of murder. (People
vs. Sandiganbayan, et. al. G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007)

CONSPIRACY; DIRECT PROOF OF CONSPIRACY NOT REQUIRED

Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution.
Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence
finds no need to prove it by direct evidence. In People v. Pagalasan, the Court explicated why direct
proof of prior agreement is not necessary.

After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are
clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy
may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently
independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose.

MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES; STRUCTURE THEREOF

In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: (1)
the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group (the hub)
dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes); and (2) the chain
conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer.

We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the wheel conspiracy. The 36 disparate
persons who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single
hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson
(Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate spokes of the
conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel. (Fernan, Jr., et.al. vs. People,
G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007)

I don't have any real-life examples at hand, but I can explain the difference. In a wheel conspiracy, there
is one conspirator in the middle who has contact with all the other conspirators; in a diagram, the main
conspirator is the hub of the wheel, with the other conspirators radiating out from him. For example, it is
possible that in a prostitution ring only the 'pimp' or 'madam' knows all the hookers, and the hookers might
not know each other. The diagram would have hookers on the outside of the wheel, with the pimp/madam
orchestrating their actions from the hub. In a ladder/chain conspiracy, each conspirator (except the
beginning and end links) only knows the co-conspirator directly above and below him/her in the chain. I
can't remember, but I think the conspirators in The DaVinci Code had this type of conspiracy.