People v. Albao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On or about the last part of June 1913, the accused, Alejandro Albao, allegedly, with intent of gain, through violence and intimidation upon the person of Vicente Lizarraga, seized a quantity of opium worth P14,000 belonging to Lizarraga. Lizarraga claimed to have found the opium on the shore, but the court found he was merely an agent for its sale. Procedural History: The accused was charged with robbery. He pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to ten years of presidio mayor. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning several errors, primarily questioning the court's findings regarding Lizarraga's possession of the opium, the circumstances of the seizure, and the conviction itself.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of robbery can be committed when the property taken is contraband and the victim is not the legal owner. Whether the defendant's use of his position as a policeman and the use of a revolver constitutes intimidation for the purpose of robbery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that robbery can be committed with respect to contraband goods and that possession is sufficient, not ownership. The penalty was modified to six years and one day of presidio mayor.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that for the commission of robbery, ownership is not a necessary element. Citing Article 502 of the Penal Code, the Court emphasized that it is sufficient if the property is taken from a person's possession by means of threats and violence for the purpose of gain. The Court relied on various international precedents, such as Rex v. Bramley and Commonwealth v. Finn, stating that robbery can be committed against a bailee or even a person who had himself stolen the property. The illegal nature of the property as contraband (opium) does not strip it of its status as property that can be the subject of robbery. The law aims to prevent the use of violence and intimidation to acquire property from the possession of others, regardless of the legality of that possession. On Issue 2: The Court found that Albao used clear intimidation and violence by pointing a revolver at Lizarraga and invoking his authority as a policeman to halt the proceedings. This display of force was the direct cause for Lizarraga surrendering the opium. The Court noted that Albao made no pretense of acting in an official capacity once he took the opium, as he immediately suggested a bribe for its return and failed to report the seizure to the authorities. Applying United States v. Navarro and United States v. Recio, the Court reaffirmed that using the threat of arrest or the display of authority to extort property constitutes robbery. The intent of gain was evident as the opium was never turned over to the government and was appropriated by Albao and his associates.
Main Doctrine
Robbery can be committed even if the property taken is contraband and the person from whom it is taken is not the owner, as long as the property is taken by means of threats and violence with the intent to gain. Possession of the property is sufficient; ownership is not necessary.