G.R. No. 124686 ; March 5, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROQUE “UKING” ELLADO and RODOLFO BAKUNAWA, accused, ROQUE “UKING” ELLADO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Roque Ellado and his co-accused brother-in-law, Rodolfo Bakunawa, were charged with the murder of Rogelio Morillo. The animosity stemmed from a quarrel between the victim and Rodolfo’s wife, who was also Roque’s sister. On the evening of December 19, 1994, Roque and Rodolfo entered the victim’s yard. Rodolfo left briefly, while Roque engaged the victim in conversation, ostensibly to apologize. Rodolfo then suddenly reappeared and stabbed Rogelio, who fled inside his house. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Joan Morillo (the victim’s daughter), testified that after the stabbing, Roque approached a window, drew a knife, taunted the wounded victim by asking if he would still fight, and directed Rodolfo to go around the house. The victim later collapsed and died.
At trial, appellant denied conspiracy, claiming he was merely present to apologize and that Rodolfo acted independently. The defense presented testimonies to show appellant had no personal quarrel with the victim and even invited him to a wedding. The Regional Trial Court convicted Roque Ellado of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He appealed, arguing his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to a lack of conspiracy.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Roque Ellado for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the existence of conspiracy.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding conspiracy duly established. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of eyewitness Joan Morillo, whose positive and straightforward testimony outweighed appellant’s denial. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. Appellant’s acts—arriving with Rodolfo, engaging the victim in a conversation that rendered him unsuspecting, taunting and threatening the victim with a knife after the initial attack, and directing Rodolfo’s movements—collectively demonstrated a common design and unity of purpose to kill Rogelio. These acts provided moral support and actual aid to Rodolfo, making appellant equally liable as a principal.
Furthermore, the manner of attack constituted treachery (alevosia). The initial conciliatory overture was a deceptive ploy that caught the victim off guard and unable to defend himself, qualifying the killing as murder. However, the other alleged aggravating circumstances were not appreciated. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.