GR L 2658; (August, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2658
August 23, 1906
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSA ALCANTARA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
—
FACTS:
1. Charges and Conviction:
– Defendants Rosa Alcantara and Nisayas were charged with robbery of jewels worth 11,185.50 pesetas.
– The Court of First Instance convicted Alcantara as the principal (sentenced to 7 years’ prision mayor) and Nisayas as an accessory after the fact (fined 750 pesetas). Only Alcantara appealed.
2. Procedural Background:
– Two separate complaints were filed for the same act: the first for theft (resulting in acquittal) and the second for robbery.
– Alcantara raised a double jeopardy defense, claiming prior acquittal, but failed to provide proof beyond referencing the record of the other case.
3. Incident Details:
– The complainant owned a jewelry store and entrusted her clerk, Francisco Llamoso, to transport jewels daily in locked boxes.
– On July 29, 1904, the clerk allegedly lost the jewels after encountering Alcantara (a former servant). According to the clerk’s account (relayed by the complainant), Alcantara persuaded him to leave the boxes in a Chinaman’s store due to rain and sent him to buy pineapples. Upon his return, Alcantara and the jewels were gone.
– The jewels were recovered the same day in Alcantara’s possession, with the boxes forcibly opened.
—
ISSUE:
1. Whether the defense of double jeopardy is valid given the prior acquittal for theft and subsequent prosecution for robbery.
2. Whether the facts proven constitute the crime of robbery under Article 502 of the Penal Code, which requires taking possession of property against the owner’s will.
—
RULING:
1. Double Jeopardy:
– The Court declined to rule definitively on this issue due to insufficient evidence of the prior acquittal and because the merits of the case rendered the plea moot.
2. Elements of Robbery Not Proven:
– The evidence showed that the clerk voluntarily handed the jewels to Alcantara for temporary safekeeping. There was no “taking” (apoderamiento) as required for robbery, which involves forcible or clandestine appropriation against the owner’s will.
– While Alcantara’s failure to return the jewels may constitute another offense (e.g., estafa), it did not meet the legal definition of robbery.
3. Disposition:
– The judgment of conviction was reversed. Alcantara was acquitted of robbery. The case was ordered remanded to the trial court for further proceedings if warranted.
Court Membership: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concurred.
—
Key Legal Principle:
– Robbery requires unlawful taking (apoderamiento) against the victim’s will. Voluntary delivery of property, even if later misappropriated, negates this element and precludes a robbery conviction.