Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. People vs. Pepino, 779
SCRA 170.

For conspiracy to exist, it must be proven or at least inferred from the acts of the alleged
perpetrator before, during and after the commission of the crime. Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs
Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 781 SCRA 573.

Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity of action towards the realization of an
unlawful objective among the accused. Ibanez vs. People, 782 SCRA 291.

Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement regarding the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331.

The Supreme Court (SC) had underscored before the fact that under our laws conspiracy
should be understood on two (2) levels, i.e., a mode of committing a crime or a crime in itself.
Inocentes vs. People, 794 SCRA 34.

To be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown to have
performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being
shown to do so none of them will be liable as a coconspirator, and each may only be held
responsible for the results of his own acts. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, 797 SCRA 241.