NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Supreme Court Clarifies: Mere Presence In Crime Meetings Not Enough To Prove Conspiracy
Photo credit: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that simply being present in meetings where a crime is discussed, or even showing approval of such a plan, does not in itself make someone a conspirator. What the law requires is an overt act that contributes to carrying out the crime.
In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the Court’s First Division affirmed the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision acquitting Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan, Sr. of multiple murder charges linked to the 2009 Maguindanao massacre. The Court stressed that the prosecution failed to prove that he actively participated in the crime or committed any act in furtherance of it.
Datu Akmad, then the Officer-in-Charge Vice Governor of Maguindanao and both nephew and son-in-law of clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr., had been indicted for 58 counts of murder. Prosecutors argued that his participation in family meetings where the massacre was planned showed his involvement, even if he was not physically present at the crime scene. They also claimed that his absence during the killings was part of the design to avoid drawing suspicion.
The Maguindanao massacre, which took place on November 23, 2009, left 58 people dead, including 32 journalists. It was considered the deadliest single attack on the press worldwide. The victims were part of a convoy of Esmael Mangudadatu, who was then preparing to challenge Andal Ampatuan Jr. in the 2010 gubernatorial race. The group was abducted by armed men, executed, and buried in mass graves.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled that while Datu Akmad had knowledge of the plan and may have expressed support during clan meetings, he did not take part in its execution. His absence at the massacre was seen as a sign that he did not bind himself to the agreed plot. The Court of Appeals upheld this finding, prompting the Office of the Solicitor General to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
In affirming the acquittal, the high court emphasized that conspiracy cannot rest on knowledge or acquiescence alone. There must be proof of intentional participation through acts that promote, advance, or help execute the plan. The Court noted that Datu Akmad’s remarks of approval, including encouraging his father to kill, were not acts in furtherance of the crime and therefore could not be taken as proof of conspiracy.
The decision highlights an important principle in conspiracy cases: that criminal liability must be grounded not on association or passive approval, but on clear and deliberate acts that contribute to the commission of the crime.
In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the Court’s First Division affirmed the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision acquitting Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan, Sr. of multiple murder charges linked to the 2009 Maguindanao massacre. The Court stressed that the prosecution failed to prove that he actively participated in the crime or committed any act in furtherance of it.
Datu Akmad, then the Officer-in-Charge Vice Governor of Maguindanao and both nephew and son-in-law of clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr., had been indicted for 58 counts of murder. Prosecutors argued that his participation in family meetings where the massacre was planned showed his involvement, even if he was not physically present at the crime scene. They also claimed that his absence during the killings was part of the design to avoid drawing suspicion.
The Maguindanao massacre, which took place on November 23, 2009, left 58 people dead, including 32 journalists. It was considered the deadliest single attack on the press worldwide. The victims were part of a convoy of Esmael Mangudadatu, who was then preparing to challenge Andal Ampatuan Jr. in the 2010 gubernatorial race. The group was abducted by armed men, executed, and buried in mass graves.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled that while Datu Akmad had knowledge of the plan and may have expressed support during clan meetings, he did not take part in its execution. His absence at the massacre was seen as a sign that he did not bind himself to the agreed plot. The Court of Appeals upheld this finding, prompting the Office of the Solicitor General to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
In affirming the acquittal, the high court emphasized that conspiracy cannot rest on knowledge or acquiescence alone. There must be proof of intentional participation through acts that promote, advance, or help execute the plan. The Court noted that Datu Akmad’s remarks of approval, including encouraging his father to kill, were not acts in furtherance of the crime and therefore could not be taken as proof of conspiracy.
The decision highlights an important principle in conspiracy cases: that criminal liability must be grounded not on association or passive approval, but on clear and deliberate acts that contribute to the commission of the crime.
Aug 19, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
