Republic of the Philippines accused in order to take possession of the said sum of money; that the

SUPREME COURT accused, once having taken possession of the money, delivered to Petrona
Manila Justiniano, who had knowledge of the perpetration of the crime, the paper
certificates, which were dried out by her with a smoothing iron and were
EN BANC kept by her with the intent of appropriating the same. All contrary to the
statute.
G.R. No. L-3326 September 7, 1907
Masbate, March 14, 1906.
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the said cause, the lower court
LAURENTE REY, defendant-appellant. found that the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced
him to be imprisoned for a period of four years, and to restore to the Union Insurance
Bishop & O'Brien for appellant. Company of Canton, Limited, the sum of 10,000 pesos and to pay the costs of the
Attorney-General Araneta for appellee. prosecution. From this sentence the defendant appealed and made the following
assignment of errors:
JOHNSON, J.:
(1) The court erred in finding that the crime of robbery had been committed.
This defendant was charged with the crime of robbery in the Court of First Instance
of the subprovince of Masbate in the words and figures following: (2) The sentence of the court is contrary to the evidence and the law.

The undersigned Laurente Rey, as principal, of the crime of robbery, By these assignments of error the defendant presents two questions, one of law and
committed as follows: one of fact.

That on or about the 26th of September, 1905, in the municipality of San An examination of the record brought to this court shows that some facts were
Jacinto, subprovince of Masbate, Philippine Islands, the accused Laurente admitted and some were denied by the respective parties. The facts admitted were
Rey, in company with Hipolito Roblora, Lucio Estay, Jose Sudueo, substantially as follows:
Demetrio Sudueno, Melecio Hernandez, and Luis Almosara, willfully,
intentionally, maliciously, with intent of profiting thereby, against the will That on or about the 19th day of September, 1905, the steamer Cantabria sailed from
of its owner and employing force with regard to the property, took the port of Manila, destined for the pueblo of Tabaco, in the Province of Albay, and
possession of the sum of fifteen thousand pesos, in silver currency and after remaining in quarantine at the quarantine station of Mariveles, continued the
paper certificates, and all the legal tender of the Philippine Islands; that said journey from said quarantine station on the 24th day of September, and on or about
amount is the property of Urrutia & Co. and of Muoz & Co., both the 26th day of said month said ship was totally wrecked off the small Island of
commercial firms doing business in the city of Manila; that the above Mababuy and all its officers, passengers, and cargo were totally lost.
mentioned amount was placed by those firms on board the
steamship Cantabria, which was totally wrecked and lost off the land of It is proved that said ship had on board at the time of sailing from the city of Manila,
Mababuy, within the municipality of San Jacinto, subprovince of Masbate, as a part of her cargo, three boxes containing money, amounting to at least 25,000
Philippine Islands; that said amount was packed in several boxes; that those pesos. There is some confusion in the evidence concerning the exact amount of
boxes were reenforced with iron straps and nails, which were broken by the money. This money was shipped by the firms of Urrutia & Co. and Muoz & Co.

1
It is proved that one Jesus A. de Sendagorta, in the month of January, 1906, Admitting the foregoing disputed facts to be true for the purpose of discussing the
recovered from the wreck of said ship the sum of 10,000 pesos. first assignment of error made by the appellant, the question arises whether or not the
defendant, under these facts, is guilty of he crime of robbery, under the provisions of
It is approved that of the 25,000 pesos shipped on the said Cantabria, 20,000 of said Penal Code.
amount belonged to Urrutia & Co. and 5,000 belonged to Muoz & Co.
The theory of the defendant and appellant is that the said property which was sunk
It is admitted that on the 16th day of October, Mr. Edward E. Hill, as agent for Union with the wrecked steamer, the said Cantabria, was abandoned properly and
Insurance Company of Canton, Limited, paid to Urrutia & Co. the sum of 35,000 therefore, granting that he had taken possession of said property and appropriated it
pesos for losses which the said company incurred by reason of the wreck of said to his own use, he was not guilty of the crime of robbery. The defendant and
steamer, and that 20,000 of said amount was for the purpose of covering the 20,000 appellant, in his brief, admits the following fact:
pesos shipped by the said Urrutia & Co. on said steamer on the 19th day of
September. That it was more than six weeks after the cyclone (in which the Cantabria was sunk)
before any definite knowledge was received in regard to the fate of the Cantabria,
The facts charged by the fiscal and denied by the defendant are substantially as thus admitting that the owner of the money alleged to has been robbed and no
follows: definite knowledge of its lost for six weeks or more after the destruction of said ship.

That the defendant, with several others, on the 28th day of September, 1905, after Article 460 of the Civil Code provides how the possessor of property may lose his
having discovered the existence and location of the wrecked steamer, took from the possession of the same:
said wrecked steamer the sum of 15,000 pesos a part of which was distributed among
his companions the largest portion of which was retained by the said defendant. (1) By abandonment of the thing.

The lower court made the following finding of facts from the evidence adduced (2) By the transfer to another for a good and valuable consideration.
during the trial of the cause:
(3) By the destruction of total loss of the thing or by the thing becoming
That on the 19th of September, 1905, silver and paper money amounting to unmarketable.
25,000 pesos belonging to the firms of Urrutia & Co. and Muoz & Co., of
Manila, was placed on the steamer Cantabria at Manila by said firms for (4) By the possession of another, even against the will of the former
shipment; that 5,000 pesos of the said money belonged to Muoz & Co. and possessor, if the new possessor has lasted more than one year.
20,000 pesos to Urrutia & Co; that on the 26th day of September
the Cantabria was totally wrecked off the Island of Mababuy, every person The evidence shows, if it can be believed, that the defendant and his companions
on her being drowned, the bills of lading of said money being lost, and the entered the wrecked ship and removed therefrom the said money and appropriated
money sunk with the ship; that on the 28th day of September, the defendant, the same to hiss own use in about twenty-four hours after the time of sinking of the
Laurente Rey, with the assistance of several men who were in his employ, said ship. Can one be charged with the abandonment of his property without even
proceeded to said wrecked steamer and willfully, unlawfully, and with the knowing that the same has passed out of his possession or has been lost? We are of
intention of appropriating it to his own use took therefrom two boxes, one the opinion, and so hold, that this question must be answered in the negative.
containing 10,000 pesos and the other 5,000 pesos; that 10,000 pesos of the
said money was the property of Urrutia & Co. and 5,000 pesos was the Manresa, in his Commentaries upon the provisions of the Civil Code, says (vol. 4, p.
property of Muoz & Co. 291):
2
 He who has a right may renounce it. This act by which thing is voluntary If the defendant and his companions had recovered the cargo from the sunken ship
renounced constitutes an abandonment. There is no real intention to for the benefit of the owners of the same, he might have been entitled to
abandon a property when, as in the case of a shipwreck or a fire, things are compensation of his labor, but when he entered the sunken ship and took therefrom,
thrown into the sea upon the highway. by force, the property of another before actual abandonment by the owner and
appropriated the same to his own use, he was, under the provisions of the Penal Code
Certainly the owner of the property ca not be held to have abandoned the same until in force in the Philippine Islands, guilty of the crime of robbery.
at least he has some knowledge of the loss of its possession or of the loss of the
thing. Upon the question whether or not the defendant and his companions did actually
commit the acts charged in the said complaint, we are of the opinion, and so hold,
Property can not be considered abandoned under the law and the possession left that the evidence adduced during the trial in the lower court fully shows that the
vacant for the finder until the spes recuperandi is gone and the animus revertendi is defendant did commit such acts in the manner and form as charged in said complaint.
finally given up. (The Ann L. Lockwood, 37 Fed. Rep., 233.) Therefore we do hereby affirm the sentence of the lower court and do hereby
sentence the defendant to imprisonment for a period of four years of presidio
The theory of abandonment on the part of the owners of the money stolen is fully correccional, under the provisions of paragraph 5 article 512 of the Penal Code, to
refuted by the fact that some weeks after the wreck of the said ship they sent men to return it Urrutia & Co. and Muoz & Co., or the Union Insurance Company of
the place of the wreck for the purpose of recovering the property which belonged to Canton , Limited, the sum of 15,000 pesos, in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary
them, which was on board the ship at the time of her sinking. The mere fact that imprisonment in accordance of paragraph 1 of article 50 of the Penal Code, and to
cargo is sunk with a ship wrecked at sea by no means deprives the owner of said pay the costs. So ordered.
cargo of his property therein. The owner certainly still had the right to reclaim such
property and to recover the same if possible. If it should be recovered by others, the
real owner would be entitled to recover its value less the necessary expense of
recovering the same and carrying it shore by the most approved appliances for that
purpose by others. (Murphy vs. Dunham, 38 Fed. Rep., 503.)