G.R. No. 53926-29 - People vs. Mateo Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 53926-29)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence depicted a coordinated robbery at the American Express Bank within the U.S. Naval Base at Sangley Point on 4 June 1971, involving armed men who used vehicles to intercept and control delivery personnel and to seize money and valuables. Rodrigo Estrebillo drove the Goody-Goody delivery truck coming from the bakery to deliver bread for the naval base. With him was Antonio Araquel, the helper. Near the Long Beach area, a passenger jeep carrying armed men cut across the truck. Three armed men boarded the Goody-Goody truck, one of them poking a gun at Estrebillo, shoving him to the side, and taking over the wheels. Araquel was likewise forced out of the truck at gunpoint and ordered into the passenger jeep. Estrebillo testified that one of the men blindfolded him using an undershirt and sat at the front of the truck, sandwiching him between armed men.

Estrebillo identified the man who pointed a gun at him as Roberto or Ruben Martinez, the one who ordered Araquel into the jeep as Gener Filoteo, and the man who took over the driver’s seat as Emmanuel Caganap. The jeep proceeded to the Bay Court Hotel in Cavite City, followed by the Goody-Goody truck driven by Emmanuel Caganap. At the hotel, the robbery plan was allegedly refined: Martinez asked about a gate pass and the manner of entry into the naval base, using a receipt that had to be stamped before actual delivery. The group then stripped Araquel of a watch, shoes, and cash, and warned Estrebillo and Araquel they would be killed and their bodies would be seen floating in the sea if they disclosed the incident.

Eyewitness testimony connected other members of the group to the Bay Court Hotel. Marilyn Tordecillas Orendain, wife of the Assistant Manager of the Bay Court Hotel, stated that she saw Roberto Martinez and Enrique Concepcion arrive in the morning of 4 June 1971, and saw Esmeraldo Cruz enter when Martinez asked for a drink. She further testified that armed men arrived in a jeep and that the group moved the Goody-Goody truck between houses in the hotel compound. She also saw other participants, including Manuel Mateo, Jr. and the Mendoza brothers, among others.

The prosecution evidence then described the execution of the plan toward the American Express Bank inside the naval base. Around 10:00 a.m., after Martinez provided last-minute instructions, the group proceeded. It was stated that Martinez assigned his group to be outside the base and to fire to confuse Americans, and that hostages might be taken if danger arose. Filoteo and Renato Mendoza allegedly left the Goody-Goody truck and approached a U.S. marine guard at the bank, using the pretext that they were looking for the administration building. Because the guard did not understand the question, Filoteo and Mendoza asked another Filipino who pointed to the administration building, after which Filoteo and Mendoza returned to the bank area. The gunmen then approached the guard and handcuffed him, taking his shotgun and radio. Shots were allegedly fired to scare people.

Inside the bank, armed men entered and ordered employees to comply and open the vaults. After the vault safes were opened, money and dollars were placed into a sack. During the exchange of gunfire, Lt. James Plumpowski was fatally shot. Testimony also identified gunmen during the bank seizure and described the taking of hostages and the rush out of the bank toward a marine truck, escape through a cut in the wire fence, and retrieval by accomplices waiting outside.

Testimony from U.S. Navy personnel further corroborated the attack mechanics outside the bank and within the base. John L. Tori, Jr., a U.S. marine at the base, described hearing alarms, observing armed men near the gate, and identifying Manuel Mateo, Jr. as the person firing a .45 caliber pistol. Tori also described a jeep with its engine running near the fence and identified Esmeraldo Cruz as seated inside with another man. Elliot J. Grey, also on guard duty, described a jeep passing the tower multiple times, two men getting out, firing weapons including a Thompson submachinegun, and then running after turning a corner. Grey then heard gunfire from the American Express Bank later in the sequence and identified Mateo as firing a .45 pistol and Martinez as firing the Thompson submachinegun.

The medical evidence described the victim’s death. Dr. William Hunter, Jr. examined the body of Lt. Plumpowski and found gunshot wounds and external and internal hemorrhage as the cause of death.

The prosecution added that additional participants were identified through photographic evidence. A photographer, Merle Dyer of the U.S. Navy at Sangley Point, took photographs during the incident. The decision recounted multiple exhibits showing sequences involving armed men, hostages, and individuals identified as specific accused, including Gener Filoteo and Renato Mendoza.

Finally, the prosecution linked the appellant to the conspiracy through extra-judicial confessions and eyewitness placement at the Bay Court Hotel, as further detailed in the trial court’s synthesis and the appellant’s rebuttal.

Charges, Pleas, and Trial Court Disposition

The accused were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide (CCC-VII-843) and Robbery in Band (CCC-VII-844, CCC-VII-845, CCC-VII-846), all tied to the 4 June 1971 events at Sangley Point. Upon arraignment, most entered NOT GUILTY, except Emmanuel Caganap, who pleaded GUILTY to the charges, resulting in a reclusion perpetua sentence in CCC-VII-843 and determinate penalties in the other cases. Rolando Reyes later withdrew his plea of NOT GUILTY and also pleaded GUILTY, receiving similar dispositions.

Charges against Manuel Mendoza were later dismissed upon motion by the City Fiscal.

After a joint trial, the court a quo rendered judgment on 5 November 1979. It convicted Manuel Mateo, Jr., Esmeraldo Cruz, Gener Filoteo, Renato Mendoza, Melanio Mendoza, Roberto Martinez @ Ruben Martinez, and Enrique Concepcion of Robbery in Band with Homicide, sentencing all to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity for the heirs of Lt. Plumpowski in the amount of P12,000.00, requiring payment to the bank for the alleged losses, and awarding moral and exemplary damages. In CCC-VII-844, CCC-VII-845, and CCC-VII-846, it convicted the same accused (excluding those already acquitted) of Robbery in Band, imposing imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day (minimum) to six (6) years (maximum), and ordering indemnity to each offended party in the amounts specified in the informations.

The court a quo acquitted Danny Tosco for insufficiency of evidence in all four cases.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Only Enrique Concepcion pursued appeal, making the core question revolve around whether he conspired with his co-accused in committing the robbery of the American Express Bank and the killing of the U.S. marine officer. Counsel argued that there was “no iota of proof” of actual participation and that the evidence failed to establish Concepcion’s conspiracy.

The appellee, in turn, relied on the record’s proof of conspiracy through the extra-judicial confessions of co-accused made soon after arrest, supported by other evidence placing the appellant with the group during the planning phase and the execution phase, and by circumstances after the robbery showing coordinated flight and “holed out” behavior while awaiting surrender.

Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Conspiracy and Evidentiary Matters

The Court held that conspiracy did not require direct proof through an express agreement. It treated conspiracy as inferable from facts and circumstances showing that two or more persons aimed, by their acts, at accomplishing the same unlawful object, with each doing a part such that the acts, though apparently independent, were connected and cooperative, reflecting a concurrence of sentiment.

On the evidentiary point, the appellant contended that the extra-judicial confessions of co-accused could not be used against him because of the rule of res inter alios acta. The Court rejected this absolute characterization. It cited the rule reiterated since People v. Badilla and further discussed in People v. Ty Sui Wong, that independently made extra-judicial confessions, identical in essential details, and corroborated by other evidence, may be admitted as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated, to show the probability of actual participation. The Court found no proof of collusion among the declarants and held that the confessions formed a complete picture of the crime when read together.

The Court then identified corroborating testimony and circumstances. It found that the appellant’s presence and participation were supported by the testimony of Marilyn Tordecillas Orendain, who saw Concepcion at the Bay Court Hotel and together with Roberto Martinez and armed men escorting the group to the hotel premises and leaving afterward. It further held that conspiracy could be inferred from the behavior after the robbery: Concepcion and his co-accused fled together to the house of Fiscal Dante Filoteo, where they “holed out” until persuaded to surrender.

The Court also assessed the defense of alibi. It treated the claim that Concepcion was at home looking over spare parts as an afterthought. The Court relied on the absence of a record of the alleged transaction, the inability to trace the jeep that Concepcion claimed he was assembling, and the asserted chain of sale involving persons no longer available. It also found incredible Concepcion’s narrative that he sought protection because of a shoot-to-kill order, noting that the desk sergeant who allegedly told him about the order was already deceased and could not verify the claim. The Court emphasized that for alibi to prosper, it was not enough to show the accused was somewhere else; it must also be shown that he was physically impossible to be at the crime scene at the time o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 53926-29)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case involved multiple accused charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide and three separate counts of Robbery in Band under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
The records identified Enrique Concepcion as the defendant-appellant whose conviction was reviewed on appeal.
The accused Manuel Mateo, Jr. and Esmeraldo Cruz withdrew their appeals after the judgment of conviction.
The trial court conducted a joint trial of the cases and rendered judgment on 5 November 1979.
The trial court convicted Manuel Mateo, Jr., Esmeraldo Cruz, Gener Filoteo, Renato Mendoza, Melanio Mendoza, Roberto Martinez @ Ruben Martinez, and Enrique Concepcion in the main homicide case and the three robbery cases.
The trial court acquitted Danny Tosco for insufficiency of evidence.
The appeal before the Court centered on the question of whether Enrique Concepcion conspired with his co-accused.

Key Factual Allegations

The People charged that the group robbed the American Express Bank Branch inside the U.S. Naval Base in Sangley Point, Cavite City on 4 June 1971 and killed Lt. James Plumpowski, USMC, on the occasion of the robbery.
The robbery was alleged to have been carried out through the use of armed men, firearms, and force, violence, and intimidation, with the bank assailants taking hostages and escaping with the loot.
A separate robbery incident was alleged to have occurred on the same date in Cavite City, involving robbery from Antonio Araquel.
A third separate robbery incident was alleged to have occurred on 4 June 1971 in Noveleta, Cavite, involving robbery of a delivery truck of Aguinaldo Development Corporation (Goody-Goody Bakery).
A fourth separate robbery incident was alleged to have occurred on 4 June 1971 in Cavite City, involving robbery from Rodrigo Estrebillo of his driver’s license.
The People’s theory was that the conspirators acted in coordinated fashion from the Bay Court Hotel to the U.S. Naval Base, using vehicles and pre-arranged roles as look-outs, drivers, and armed assailants.
The factual narration described armed men taking over the Goody-Goody truck’s operation, separating and controlling the driver and helper, and directing the group’s movement toward the naval base.
At the Bay Court Hotel, Roberto Martinez allegedly detailed the plan to rob the American Express Bank by entering the base and using a gate pass mechanism to facilitate access.
The People alleged that, in furtherance of the plan, some assailants approached the bank entrance, handcuffed Para Guadalupe, seized a shotgun and radio, and placed guards outside the bank.
The People alleged that the bank employees were compelled to open the vault and safes, after which money was gathered into a sack under armed supervision.
The People alleged an exchange of gunfire between the U.S. marines and the armed men, resulting in the fatal shooting of Lt. James Plumpowski.
The factual account described the group’s escape using a wire-fence breach previously cut, with armed men waiting outside to assist the getaway.
The People presented identifications placing Enrique Concepcion at the Bay Court Hotel shortly after the group arrived and placing him in the sequence of events related to the bank operation.
The People further presented identifications tying Manuel Mateo, Jr. and other accused to the main gate activities and the firing within the base during the robbery operation.
The People also presented physical and documentary corroboration through photographs taken during the incident by Merle Dyer, and through medical findings regarding the cause of death of Lt. James Plumpowski.
The factual narration included post-incident capture and investigation of co-accused, with extra-judicial confessions obtained by PC-CIS authorities naming Enrique Concepcion as a participant.

Charges and Trial Court Disposition

In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-843-Cavite City, the information charged Robbery in Band with Homicide for the robbery of the bank and the killing of Lt. James Plumpowski.
In Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-VII-844, CCC-VII-845, and CCC-VII-846-Cavite City, the informations charged separate counts of Robbery in Band involving Antonio Araquel, Aguinaldo Development Corporation, and Rodrigo Estrebillo, respectively.
Upon arraignment, most accused pleaded NOT GUILTY, while Emmanuel Caganap pleaded GUILTY and was sentenced accordingly, and Rolando Reyes later withdrew his plea and pleaded GUILTY.
The trial court’s judgment (dated 5 November 1979) imposed reclusion perpetua for the composite homicide case.
The trial court ordered joint and several indemnity to the heirs of Lt. James Plumpowski in P12,000.00.
The trial court ordered restitution to the bank for amounts of $41,120.79 and P96,532.38, and awarded moral damages and exemplary damages in P10,000.00 each.
For the three robbery-in-band cases without homicide, the trial court imposed imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years for each case.
The trial court ordered indemnities to the named private complainants in the respective amounts stated in the informations.
The trial court acquitted Danilo Tosco @ Danny Tosco for insufficiency of evidence.

Appellate Issue

The appeal required the Court to determine whether Enrique Concepcion conspired with his co-accused in the commission of the crimes charged.
The appellant argued that there was no proof he actually participated in the offenses or in the furtherance of the conspiracy to rob the American Express Bank.

Contentions of Appellant

The appellant denied participation and raised alibi as his defense.
He contended that the evidence did not show any act linking him to the robbery plan or to the execution of the crimes.
He asserted that the extra-judicial confessions of co-accused should not be used against him under the principle of res inter alios acta.

Contentions of People

The People argued that conspiracy could be inferred from acts and circumstances even without direct evidence of an express agreement.
The People relied on co-accused extra-judicial confessions given soon after arrest, which allegedly implicated the appellant.
The People invoked the admissibility of independently made extrajudicial confessions as circumstantial evidence when there was no proof of collusion and when confessions wer