No ex post facto Conspiracy
One who joins a conspiracy while the felony subject thereof is being committed or before the said felony is committed and performs overt acts to achieve the common design or purpose, is criminally liable for said felony. On the other hand, one who joins a conspiracy after the felony subject of the conspiracy has been completed or consummated is not criminally liable as a conspirator. There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has already been done and consummated. PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES INC., and EDWIN YU, vs. CA, (SEVENTH DIVISION) and HARLEY T. SY G.R. No. 163593, December 16, 2005.
Conspiracy; Direct evidence of prior agreement not necessary;
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime. Neither is its necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What has to be shown is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design. People vs. Quirol et.al. G.R. No. 149259, October 20, 2005)
Conspiracy; must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Evangeline Ledonga vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005.
Circumstantial evidence; test of moral certainty sufficient to convict an accused
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which “goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue.” Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free.
The standard that should be observed by the courts in appreciating circumstantial evidence was extensively discussed in the case of People of the Philippines v. Modesto, et al. thus:
… No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
It has been said, and we believe correctly, that the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Stated in another way, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused. (ORLANDO SOLIS UNGSOD vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G. R. No. 158904, December 16, 2005)
