See -
BP 22 Does Not Expressly Proscribe The Suppletory Application Of The Provisions Of The RPC. Thus, In The Absence Of Contrary Provision In B.P. Blg. 22, The General Provisions Of The RPC Which, By Their Nature, Are Necessarily Applicable, May Be Applied Suppletorily... - The Lawyer's Post
See - http://thelawyerspost.net/bp-22-does-not-expressly-proscribe-the-suppletory-application-of-the-provisions-of-the-rpc-thus-in-the-absence-of-contrary-provision-in-b-p-blg-22-the-general-provisions-of-the-rpc-which-by-thei/#.VSS0eNyUemw
"x x x.
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent case of Yu vs. People,[5] the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39[6]32 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of the provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[7]
All these notwithstanding, the conviction of the petitioner must be set aside.
Article 8 of the RPC provides that “a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.” To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity[8]. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan[9].
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. As testified to by the lone prosecution witness, complainant Alfredo Oculam, petitioner was merely present when her husband, Adronico, signed the check subject of Criminal Case No. 7068[10]. With respect to Criminal Case Nos. 7069-7070, Oculam also did not describe the details of petitioner’s participation. He did not specify the nature of petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime, either by a direct act of participation, a direct inducement of her co-conspirator, or cooperating in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design.
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence[11].3 Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy[12]. 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[13].
x x x."
