Burden of Proof in Conspiracy: Understanding Probable Cause and the ‘Act of One is the Act of All’ Doctrine

DOMINGO V. DE GUZMAN III, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. NO. 255229

TOMAS PASTOR, PETITIONER,VS. DALIA GUERRERO PASTOR, RESPONDENT.

G.R. NO. 255503

PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DALIA GUERRERO PASTOR AND DOMINGO V. DE GUZMAN III, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N – G.R. No. 255100, February 26, 2024

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn’t directly commit, simply because you were associated with someone who did. This is the fear that the law of conspiracy seeks to address, balancing the need to prosecute criminals with the protection of innocent individuals. The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently tackled this delicate balance in the consolidated cases involving the death of Ferdinand “Enzo” Salas Pastor. The cases highlight the complexities of proving conspiracy and determining probable cause for arresting and indicting individuals potentially linked to a crime.

Understanding Legal Principles in Conspiracy Cases

Conspiracy, as defined in Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. This agreement doesn’t need to be written or formally declared; it can be inferred from the actions and conduct of the individuals involved. The legal principle that often arises in conspiracy cases is that “the act of one is the act of all.” This means that if a conspiracy is proven, every conspirator is equally responsible for the crime, regardless of their individual participation.

However, proving conspiracy isn’t as simple as showing that people knew each other or were present when a crime was planned. The prosecution must demonstrate a common design or purpose through acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during, and after the commission of the felony. Mere presence or association isn’t enough. There must be evidence of an agreement and an intention to participate in the crime.

Probable cause, on the other hand, is a lower standard of proof. It refers to facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. As the Supreme Court emphasized in this case, probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest pertains to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

Key text from the Revised Penal Code, Article 8:
“Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”

The Pastor Case: A Web of Accusations

The case stems from the shooting death of Ferdinand “Enzo” Salas Pastor. Domingo V. De Guzman III was accused of masterminding the crime, allegedly conspiring with a hired gun, Police Officer II Edgar Angel. Enzo’s wife, Dalia Guerrero Pastor, was also implicated, accused of conspiring with De Guzman, her alleged lover, in the parricide. The prosecution presented a narrative pieced together from witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence. The case went through multiple layers of investigation and court hearings, with conflicting rulings on the existence of probable cause against Dalia. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• The Shooting: Enzo Pastor was fatally shot in Quezon City.
• PO2 Angel’s Confession: PO2 Angel confessed to the crime, implicating De Guzman as the mastermind and Dalia as a conspirator. He later recanted his confession.
• Nidua’s Testimony: Alvin Nidua, a self-proclaimed gun-for-hire, testified that De Guzman and Dalia tried to hire him to kill Enzo.
• Lower Court Rulings: The Regional Trial Court found probable cause against both De Guzman and Dalia, issuing warrants for their arrest.
• Court of Appeals Decision: The Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s ruling regarding Dalia, finding a lack of probable cause against her, but upheld the ruling against De Guzman.

“Probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest pertains to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested,” the Supreme Court stated, highlighting the standard used for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused.

The Supreme Court granted the petitions of Tomas Pastor and the People of the Philippines, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision that dismissed the criminal case against Dalia Guerrero Pastor. This ruling reinstated the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 91, which directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest and hold departure order for Dalia, and reunited the case against her.

One of the most contentious points was the admissibility and weight of PO2 Angel’s confession. While he later recanted, the courts considered his initial statements, along with other evidence, in determining probable cause against De Guzman. The Court of Appeals found that even without Dalia calling Erizo, PO2 Angel already knew where to waylay Enzo since De Guzman had already told PO2 Angel where to do it. PO2 Angel himself was able to trail the truck Enzo was driving.

Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for Future Cases?

This case underscores the importance of demonstrating a clear agreement and intention to participate in a crime when alleging conspiracy. It’s not enough to simply show that individuals knew each other or were present at the scene. The prosecution must present concrete evidence linking each alleged conspirator to the common criminal design.

Key Lessons:

• Burden of Proof: In conspiracy cases, the prosecution must prove an agreement to commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Probable Cause: While a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, probable cause must still be based on concrete facts and circumstances.
• Recanted Confessions: Recanted confessions are viewed with skepticism but may still be considered alongside other evidence.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but the evidence must be strong and consistent with the theory of conspiracy.

For example, imagine two business partners, Alex and Ben, discussing a scheme to defraud investors. If Ben later carries out the scheme without Alex’s direct involvement, it could be difficult to prove conspiracy unless there’s evidence that Alex agreed to and intended to participate in the fraud.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between conspiracy and being an accessory to a crime?

A: Conspiracy involves an agreement to commit a crime, while being an accessory involves helping someone after they have committed a crime.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove conspiracy?

A: Evidence can include direct evidence of an agreement, circumstantial evidence of coordinated actions, and admissions or confessions.

Q: Can someone be convicted of conspiracy even if the planned crime never happens?

A: In some jurisdictions, yes. The agreement itself can be a crime, even if the planned act is not carried out.

Q: What does “probable cause” mean in the context of an arrest?

A: Probable cause means that there is enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that a crime has been committed and that the person being arrested likely committed it.

Q: What happens if a key witness recants their testimony in a conspiracy case?

A: A recanted testimony can weaken the prosecution’s case, but the court will consider the reasons for the recantation and whether there is other evidence to support the charges.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and conspiracy cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.