TITLE: PEOPLE vs.

BELLO (GR 124871, May 13, 2004, 428 SCRA 388)

FACTS: To support his family, ROLANDO ANDASAN left Cabanatuan City and landed a
job as messenger/collector at the Sunshine Moneychanger in Pasay City, earning a measly net
income of P2,000.00 per month. On July 25, 1995, in the course of his employment, he was
mercilessly stabbed 28 times and died.
Only accused Marife and Eladio, Jr. were arrested. Accused Danny and Cayo remain at
large.
At about 10:30 a.m., a cab entered the Queensland Lodge in Pasay City, with accused
Marife and Eladio, Jr. on board. They alighted in front of the private garage of room no. 2 and
informed Jonathan Deniega, a roomboy, that they needed a room. Jonathan led them. He then
gave a stub to their telephone operator, DIGNA SIAZON, where he indicated that two
customers checked in at room no. 2. Accused Marife called up Digna and asked for an outside
line. Marife then called up the Sunshine Moneychanger in Pasay City and talked with the
officer-in-charge, EDUARDO RAFAEL. Identifying herself as Joann Redillo, accused Marife
misrepresented to Eduardo that she came from Japan and would like to convert her 40 pieces of
yen to pesos. She requested that the currency conversion be made in her room inside the
nearby Queensland Lodge as she did not want to carry around a huge sum of money. Eduardo
instructed his messenger ROLANDO ANDASAN to proceed to the lodge and give the lady
occupant of room no. 2 the sum of P114,000.00 in exchange for her 40 pieces of yen. ROSE
CAHARIAN, an accounting clerk of the lodge, saw Rolando standing by the hallway. Rolando
informed her that he had about a hundred thousand pesos with him as they have a female guest
in room no. 2 who wanted to have her yen converted into pesos. Rose escorted Rolando to
Digna, the telephone operator, and directed the latter to call up room no. 2 and announce the
presence and purpose of Rolando. Digna called up room no. 2 and accused Marife confirmed
the currency transaction. Roomboy MAYONITO WAYCO escorted Rolando and directed him
to wait in the garage while he first went up the room to announce his presence. Accused
Eladio, Jr. opened the door and instructed Mayonito to let Rolando in. Mayonito returned to the
garage and waited. At about 2 p.m., accused Marife called up telephone operator Digna and
informed her that they were checking out of the room. Seconds later, Mayonito, who was still
waiting for Rolando in the garage, saw accused Marife emerge from room no. 2 While waiting
for the bill and the cab, Mayonito inquired from accused Marife where Rolando was. She
dismissed his query and directed him to follow-up instead the preparation of their bill as she
and her companion were in a hurry. Mayonito rushed to the cashier to get the bill, only to be
told that it was already with Jonathan.
Meanwhile, Jonathan returned to accused Marife with the bill. He waited with her at the
garage for about 5 minutes for the arrival of her cab. As she seemed quite impatient to leave,
they started to walk towards the gate of the lodge. Just then, security guard Leonardo was able
to hail a cab and instructed it to enter the lodge. Mayonito instructed cab driver ERNESTO
RAMOS to stay for a while as they still had to inspect room no. 2. Accused Marife likewise
directed Ernesto to wait for her companion accused Eladio, Jr. who, seconds later, emerged
from the garage but did not board the cab and fled on foot. Accused Marife then ordered
Ernesto to follow him. In the meantime, roomboys Mayonito and Jonathan discovered the
lifeless body of Rolando inside the room, lying beside the bed and covered by blood-stained
bedsheets. He sustained multiple stab wounds and a TV cable wire was tied around his neck.
Mayonito immediately left the room to pursue its former occupants but he saw accused
Marifes cab already on its way out of the lodge and accused Eladio, Jr. fleeing on foot. Eladio,
Jr. deftly freed himself from Leonardos grip and ran inside the nearby Violeta Court
Subdivision. At about the same time, the cab boarded by accused Marife left the premises of

the lodge and followed accused Eladio, Jr. in the subdivision. When the cab reached the end of
the road, the two accused alighted and scaled the wall of the subdivision. Accused Eladio, Jr.
succeeded but Marife failed to climb over the wall and was left behind.When Ernesto drove
back to the gate of the subdivision, the security guards stopped him, inspected his cab and saw
a brown envelope which was left by accused Marife at the backseat. They instructed Ernesto to
return to the lodge as a crime had been committed by his passengers.
Appellant Marife avers that her alleged conspiracy with the other accused was not sufficiently
established by circumstantial evidence as there was no showing that she had the same purpose
and united with the other accused in the execution of the crime. She alleges that her mere
presence in the crime scene is not per se a sufficient indicium of conspiracy. She insists that
she acted against her will due to the irresistible force employed by her co-accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is conspiracy.
RULING: Conspiracy exists where the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
crime and decide to pursue it. Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as it involves the
meeting of the minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential
to establish it. The existence of the assent of minds of the co-conspirators may be inferred from
proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of the
complete plan to commit the crime.
In the case at bar, the records clearly reveal that appellant Marife was part of the plan to rob the
moneychanger. This plan was mapped out in accused Dannys house in Cavite by appellants,
together with accused Danny and Cayo. The four drove in a cab from Cavite to Baclaran. As
the robbery will be set up inside a motel room, only appellants Marife and Eladio, Jr. boarded a
tricycle and checked in the lodge so as not to arouse suspicion. A number of employees of the
Queensland Lodge and the cab driver testified on the conduct of appellant Marife inside the
lodge on that fateful day: the roomboys identified her and Eladio, Jr. as the ones who alighted
from the tricycle and checked into room no. 2; contrary to her account, the employees did not
notice that appellant Marife was nervous, crying or trembling due to fear when she entered the
lodge; appellant Marife asked the telephone operator thrice that day for an outside line; using
an alias, she called up the moneychanger twice to set up the robbery; appellants were the last to
see the victim alive; after they accomplished their criminal design, appellant Marife rushed out
of the room, personally paid for the bill and asked for a cab; the roomboys noticed that she was
nervous and in a hurry to leave; after she boarded the cab, she ordered the driver to wait for her
companion; she and Eladio, Jr. then fled from the lodge while the roomboys were inspecting
their room; both sought refuge in a subdivision; and, finally, they tried to scale the wall of the
subdivision in an attempt to get away. All these chain of events and the conduct of appellant
Marife lead to no other conclusion than that she conspired with her co-accused to commit the
crime.
Neither can we give credit to appellant Marifes claim of duress and irresistible fear.
Her story simply does not add up. First, the records show that she had close relations with all
her co-accused: she has a child with appellant Eladio, Jr.; she and her co-accused all resided in
Cavite; accused Danny Dineros asked her to be the godmother of his child; she knew where
Danny resided in Cavite and they both hail from Samar; and, even Marifes aunt in Samar was
acquainted with Danny. Indeed, her claim of irresistible force from her co-accused is difficult
to fathom as it would be easier to instill fear on a stranger than on a friend or close relation.
Second, while appellant Marife claims that she was mostly in tears during the time she was
abducted by her co-accused, none of the employees of the lodge noticed any manifestation of
fear or coercion on her part. Third, her claim of duress and irresistible fear is negated by her

failure to escape or ask for succor during her alleged abduction despite several opportunities to
do so. She could have asked help from the people she saw along the road when they left
Dannys house in Cavite and while she was allegedly being dragged towards the cab; from the
tricycle driver who drove them to the lodge; from the roomboys who stayed with her in the
garage after the stabbing incident, while she was waiting for her bill and cab; and, from the cab
driver who picked her up from the lodge. She could have escaped after the stabbing incident
when she went out of the room alone and conversed with the roomboy. An innocent victim of
circumstances would have waited for and eagerly grabbed the first chance to escape or seek
help; but not appellant Marife. Fourth, she escaped from the lodge, fled to the nearby
subdivision and tried to scale its wall with appellant Eladio, Jr. who, moments before, was
supposed to be her aggressor. Finally, even at the time she was arrested, she stuck to her alias
and identified herself as Joann Redillo to the police authorities. Hence, apart from her biased
testimony, the records are bereft of evidence to corroborate and bolster her claim of coercion.
The more logical and inescapable conclusion is that she was part of the conspiracy. Plainly, her
conduct all throughout the incident reveals that she was united in purpose with her co-accused
in the execution of the crime.
On the whole, the incriminating circumstantial evidence against the appellants
sufficiently proves their complicity.
Circumstantial evidence is that which proves a fact or series of facts from which the
facts in issue may be established by inference.25 Resort to circumstantial evidence is, in the
nature of things, a necessity as crimes are usually committed clandestinely and under
conditions where concealment is highly probable. To require direct testimony would, in many
cases, result in freeing criminals and deny proper protection to society.26 Thus, the guilt of an
accused may be established through circumstantial evidence provided that the requisites are
present, viz: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inferences must be based on
proven facts; (3) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt
as to the guilt of the accused.27
In the case at bar, while no witness testified to the actual stabbing and robbing of the
victim, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution supports a judgment of
conviction. Appellants asked roomboy Jonathan for a room; Jonathan escorted them to room
no. 2, prepared the room for them by turning on the lights, television and airconditioning unit
before ushering them in. The telephone operator received a request for an outside line from the
lady occupant of room no. 2 thrice that day. Eduardo, the manager of the moneychanger, got
phone calls from the lady occupant of room no. 2 who identified herself as Joann Redillo; the
caller pretended that she just arrived from Japan and asked her yen be converted to pesos.
Eduardo gave his messenger, the victim Rolando Andasan, the amount of P114,000.00 to be
delivered to the lady occupant of room no. 2. Rolando arrived at the lodge and explained his
purpose to the employees therein. Rolando was a familiar face in the lodge which had an
internal arrangement with the moneychanger to extend currency conversion services upon the
request of their guests. Appellant Eladio, Jr. used to be employed as a messenger of the
moneychanger and knew about the offices internal arrangement with the lodge. Roomboy
Mayonito escorted Rolando to room no. 2 for the currency transaction; when appellant Eladio,
Jr. opened the door to Mayonito, the latter informed him about the presence of Rolando in the
garage; appellant Eladio, Jr. gave the go signal for Rolando to come up to the room; Mayonito
returned to the garage, fetched Rolando and escorted him to room no. 2; again, it was appellant
Eladio, Jr. who opened the door and let Rolando in. That was the last time Rolando was seen
alive and the money was no longer to be found.
After accomplishing their criminal design, appellants emerged from the room, hurriedly
paid their bill and left. The roomboys discovered the cadaver of Rolando in the room which

sustained several stab wounds. Appellants fled and scaled the wall of the subdivision. The
police authorities recovered a knife under the bed of room no. 2 which fitted the scabbard left
by appellant Marife in the cab, together with a bloodied face towel. The width of this knife is
compatible with the width of the stab wounds sustained by the victim.
Thus, while no person actually witnessed the appellants rob and kill the victim, the
confluence of the incriminating circumstances enumerated above clearly shows that the
appellants had motive and opportunity to kill the victim when he resisted the robbery. As the
victim was last seen alive with them, coupled with their conduct that fateful day and their
possession of the deadly weapon, there can be no other reasonable conclusion than that the
appellants authored the crime. To be sure, their conviction is essentially based on this unbroken
chain of events as testified to by the prosecution witnesses and not on the uncounselled
interrogation of appellant Marife by the police authorities.
Appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with modification. Appellants MARIFE BELLO y
ROSCO and ELADIO M. CONSUELO, JR. are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the crime of robbery with homicide and, in the absence of any aggravating
circumstance, are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.. No costs.