People v. Rey
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On or about September 26, 1905, the steamship Cantabria was totally wrecked off the coast of Mababuy, Masbate. The ship carried cargo belonging to Urrutia & Co. and Muñoz & Co., including boxes containing at least 25,000 pesos in silver and paper currency. The defendant, Laurente Rey, along with several others, allegedly entered the wrecked steamer approximately twenty-four hours after the sinking and took two boxes containing 10,000 pesos (Urrutia & Co.) and 5,000 pesos (Muñoz & Co.). The paper money was allegedly dried and kept by Petrona Justiniano with the intent to appropriate it. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Masbate found the defendant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, to restore 10,000 pesos to the Union Insurance Company of Canton, Limited, and to pay costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning as errors that the court erred in finding that the crime of robbery had been committed and that the sentence was contrary to the evidence and the law. The core of the defense was that the property, having sunk with the wrecked steamer, was abandoned property, thus not subject to a charge of robbery.
Issue(s)
Whether the property sunk with a wrecked vessel, before any knowledge of its loss by the owners, can be considered abandoned property. Whether the taking of property from a wrecked vessel, under the circumstances, constitutes the crime of robbery under the Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the defendant guilty of robbery. The sentence of imprisonment for four years of presidio correccional was upheld, with the order to restore 15,000 pesos to Urrutia & Co. and Muñoz & Co. (or the Union Insurance Company of Canton, Limited), and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment: The Court held that property sunk with a wrecked vessel is not considered abandoned until the owner has lost all hope of recovery (spes recuperandi) and has given up the intention to return for it (animus revertendi). The defendant's act of taking the money occurred approximately twenty-four hours after the sinking, a period too short for the owners to have gained knowledge of the loss, let alone to have formed an intention to abandon the property. The evidence further showed that the owners sent men to the wreck weeks later to recover their property, negating any claim of abandonment. Article 460 of the Civil Code, which outlines ways possession may be lost, does not apply when the owner lacks knowledge of the loss or destruction of the property. Therefore, the property could not be considered abandoned and left vacant for the finder. On the commission of robbery: The Court found that the evidence adduced during the trial fully supported the lower court's finding that the defendant committed the acts charged. The defendant, with the assistance of his employees, entered the wrecked steamer and willfully, unlawfully, and with the intention of appropriating it to his own use, took the boxes of money. This act, performed before any actual abandonment by the owner and with the intent to profit, squarely falls within the definition of robbery under the Penal Code. The Court distinguished this from a situation where individuals might recover cargo for the benefit of the owners, in which case compensation for labor might be due. However, by taking the property by force and appropriating it to his own use, the defendant committed the crime of robbery.
Main Doctrine
Property lost in a shipwreck is not considered abandoned until the owner has lost hope of recovery and the intention to return for it. Taking such property by force before actual abandonment constitutes robbery.