In order to establish conspiracy, there must be proof of an agreement

and intentional participation in the commission of the crime. Mere

presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish conspiracy.
The evidence presented must meet the test of moral certainty to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Edwina Rimando y Fernando vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 229701, VELASCO, JR., November 29, 2017

Facts:
Alex Muñez from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) conducted a
test-buy and entrapment operation against individuals distributing
counterfeit US dollar notes, including Romeo Rimando (Datu Romy). On
September 14, 2012, an entrapment operation led to the arrest of
Romeo Rimando and Edwina Rimando, who were caught with
counterfeit US dollar notes after transacting with Muñez. Senior
Currency Specialist Reynaldo Paday and US Secret Service Agent
Glenn Peterson confirmed the counterfeit nature of the seized US dollar
bills.

Appellants, Edwina and Romeo Rimando, contested their presence and

involvement in the currency counterfeiting transaction, suggesting they
were apprehended under false pretenses during a separate and
unrelated meeting.

Issue/s:
The admissibility of testimonies and evidence concerning the entrapment
operation and the counterfeit US dollar notes seized from the appellants.

The credence given to the appellants' claim of a separate meeting,

suggesting they were not involved in the counterfeiting transaction.
The determination of conspiracy between Romeo and Edwina Rimando
in the commission of the crime.

Held:
The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the Regional Trial Court's (RTC)
decision, finding substantial evidence against the appellants, affirming
their conviction for illegal possession and use of counterfeit currency as
defined under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme
Court reversed the CA's decision, focusing on the absence of overt acts
by Edwina Rimando that would suggest her active participation or
conspiracy in the counterfeiting operation. The Court emphasized the
necessity of moral certainty in establishing guilt for conspiracy, which
was not met in Edwina's case, leading to her acquittal.

The ruling underscored the principle that for a conspiracy to be

established, there must be unequivocal evidence of an agreement
towards committing a crime and subsequent overt acts in its execution,
which were not sufficiently demonstrated in Edwina Rimando's case.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 6,

2016 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Edwina Rimando is
hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that her guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.