Roa, Vanessa C.

EH406
Legal Writing

I. Facts:

In the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda in Tacloban, Oby Juan, a 28-

year old father was charged with theft of 1 sack of rice, 3 gallons of
purified water, 1 box of biscuits, which items he found in a warehouse
left ruined by the typhoon. The theft allegedly happened five days
after Yolanda.

The owner of the warehouse, Mr. Pal Patin, claimed that the crime of
theft was aggravated by the fact that it was committed on the
occasion of calamity. Mr. Pal Patin also argued that Oby Juan, being
an employee a sales assistant in the grocery store owned by Mr.
Palpatin, committed qualified theft and not just simple theft because
of the employer-employee relationship between them.

II. Issue/s:

Whether or not the accused, Oby Juan, committed qualified theft.

III. Rules governing the issue/s:

As stated in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,

there are elements to show that there is qualified theft and these are
as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said
property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to
gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances

under Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic
servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3)
the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large
cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

According to the general rule, stealing of any kind is a criminal and

punishable act under the RPC.

IV. Analysis:

Based on the general rule Ive stated above, there are exceptions as
usual and the given case is one of them. It is not just to justify
stealing of any kind. The justifying circumstance stated in our
Philippine laws is an acknowledgement that the instinct of self-
preservation takes more importance in case of emergency. Acts
performed during a state of emergency may amount to a justifying
circumstance under Art. 11, paragraph 4 of the RPC which states:
The following do not incur any criminal liability straight to
paragraph 4 - Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present: 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists. 2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
In this case, it is also possible that it will fall under paragraph 6 of
Article 12 of the RPC which states that any person who acts under
the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
amounts to an exempting circumstance from criminal liability.

V. Counterarguments

1. As a general rule, stealing of any kind is a criminal and

punishable act under the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines. Why shouldnt this case be considered a qualified
theft?

There are justifying circumstances, which our Philippines laws

acknowledge that the instinct of self-preservation takes more
importance in case of emergency. The case may fall under the
elements of qualified theft because it is stated in Art. 310 of the RPC
that the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident
or civil disturbance. but I can also rebut that there is Art. 11 of the
RPC, particularly paragraph 4 which states Any person who, in order
to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present: 1. That the
evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 2. That the injury feared be
greater than that done to avoid it. 3. That there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing it. Oby Juan clearly acted in
order for something less harmful to happen and doing whats practical
instead.

We also have 6 of Article 12 of the RPC which states that any person
who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury amounts to an exempting circumstance from criminal
liability. Oby Juan acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
knowing that theres no other means to survive and that would
sustain his sanity. What more could happen if he hasnt eaten for
days, what more could he have done than just stealing?
VI. Conclusion

When there is a state of emergency it is just temporary and soon it

will pass. Under normal conditions, stealing is criminal but in cases
where a person faces a life and death situation, then such acts either
fall under the exceptions to criminal liability or justifiable
circumstances. It now becomes a crime by necessity when a person
faces a situation that compels him into doing something illegal in
order to prevent serious harm. According to our laws, it is also called
lesser of two evils. Oby Juan did what he had to do to prevent him
from doing the evilest thing that could possibly happen when he no
longer has his sanity and that is to survive. One could get away from
this defense because its like saying youre left with two options,
doing evil or lesser evil. And what more could the government be
concern of rather than the general welfare, but in this case people
were fighting for survival and thats the most understandable part. We
dont get to choose where the typhoon should hit, but unfortunately it
hit the Philippines, a third world country where theres not much to
expect. Help doesnt come in first class, there is a long process as to
where the help should proceed first before finally being able to hand it
to the ones in need.