Page 1 of 2

Tan, Rolan Vincent S.

JD 1 EH 408
University of San Carlos

FIRACC
(Facts, Issues, Rules, Applications, Counter-Arguments, Conclusion)

Case No. 1
Facts Oby Juan, a 28-year old father, was charged with the theft of 1 sack of rice, 3
gallons of purified water, and a box of biscuit which was found in a warehouse
ruined during Typhoon Yolanda. The owner of the warehouse, Pal Patin, alleged
that the theft happened 5 days after the typhoon.
Pal Patin also claimed that the theft was aggravated by the fact that it happened
during calamity, and that he committed not just simple theft but qualified theft as
well because of their employer-employee relationship.

Issues W/N Oby Juan can be charged of qualified theft?

Rules Elements of Simple Theft

Art. 308, Revised Penal Code
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
Circumstances of Qualified Theft
Art. 310, Revised Penal Code
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.

Grave abuse of confidence

Determined from the trust entrusted by the offended party to the offender, or the
nature of the work of the offender, which must involve trust and confidence. The
grave abuse of confidence must arise out of the relation by reason of
dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the offended
party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the
accused abused. [People v. Koc Song, 63 Phil. 369 (1936)]

State of Necessity as a Justifying Circumstance

Art. 11 (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;
o First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
o Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
o Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.

Application Oby Juan is not criminally liable for simple theft, much more for qualified theft, because
of the Laws there is no intent due gain, pursuant to Art. 11, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code,
providing State of Necessity as a Justifying Circumstance.

The intent to gain the law seeks to punish as an element of theft is not the intent that
urged Oby Juan to steal, as his intent to loot was rather for survival. Because the case at
hand is about the intent to survive, such cannot be used in lieu of intent to gain as
contemplated in Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

Even if, arguendo, that all the elements of theft are present, the presence of calamity is
not considered as an aggravating circumstance, or even as a circumstance that makes it
 Page 2 of 2

qualified theft, but as as justifying circumstance at that. In aggravating circumstance,

thefts are committed by people who take advantage of the chaos to commit the crime.
However, during a state of necessity, theft (or loot) is done out of necessity for
preservation, and not to take advantage of the situation.

What makes it different to theft for survival in ordinary times is that calamities are sui
generis in nature, and for as long as what is stolen are intended for survival.

Therefore, there should be no crime to be contemplated for Oby Juan.

However, though Oby Juan no longer has any criminal liability, he still has civil liability to
repay Pal Patin, as there is still a need to indemnify Pal Patin on the properties he lost.
Pal Patin continues to have property rights and were never lost during the typhoon.

Counter- Aggravating Circumstances: Art. 14, p (7). That the crime be committed on the
Argument occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or
misfortune.
o The reason for the existence of this circumstance is found in the
debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great
calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. (U.S. vs.
Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150, 157)
Qualified Theft: Art. 310. ...or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.

Conclusion That the case at bar must not be decided on mere technicality because it defeats the spirit
of the law to attain justice. Mercy, compassion, and liberality is employed. Thus, Oby Juan
will not incur criminal liability on his act, but will incur civil liability, pursuant to Art. 11, par.
4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Case No. 2
Facts - Arawen and Czar-uman have been married for over 5 years
- Theyve been separated in fact for 3 years, when Czar-uman was caught having
sexual intercourse with another man
- She injured her husband upon seeing the act and charged with slight physical
injuries
- Psychiatric reports reveal that Arawen was a victim of repeated spousal abuse, both
physical and psychological = battered wife syndrome
- Czar-uman filed custody case and asked family court for custody of their 3-year old
daughter on the ground on the latters criminal propensity

Issues - W/N Arawen has custody of the 3-year old daughter

- Sub-issue: W/N she had criminal propensity

Rules - Battered wife syndrome

- Justifying circumstance
- General rule: custody to mother for under 7 children, exceptions if mother is unfit

Application of -Arawen can have the custody over the child considering that the child is below 3-years
the Laws of age and that her psychological disorder is a result of repeated spousal-abuse
which would definitely not affect her capacity to take care of their child. Moreover,
the law favors the lesser evil party than the one with the greater evil, herein the
husband, Czar-uman, in awarding the custody for the child.

-She cannot be criminally charged since her act is one which constitute a crime of
passion considering that it was brought up after she caught her husband having
intimate affairs with another man.

Counter- - Grounds for unfit mother: criminal propensity (slight physical injury was a result of
Argument passion and obfuscation. Furthermore, it was directed to the husband, not to the child.)
- Criminal propensity is not mutually exclusive to husband, but child can also be
affected
- How could you be suffering from spousal abuse if it has been 3 years

Conclusion - Wife has custody to the child