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 in the occasion of a
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.

Issues:

Whether or not there was theft by Oby Juan?

Rules:

Rules that can be applicable to this case are Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code on who are liable for theft.

Article 14 and Article 310 can also be applicable to this case which
provides the crimes committed under aggravating circumstance and
qualified theft.

Analysis:

I. Criminal Case

The charge of the crime of theft against Oby Juan will not prosper.
Oby Juan stole the 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 to
survive. Oby Juan had no intent to gain, and the warehouse can considered
ruined which could appear to the latter that it has been abandoned and left by
the owner. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code states that:
“ART. 308. Who are liable for theft. – Theft is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

Theft shall likewise be committed by:

1
 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to
the local authorities or to its owner;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another,
shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him;
and

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is
is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner,
shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or
farm products.”

The elements of Theft are: a) The taking of personal property; b) The

property belongs to another; c) The taking was done with intent to gain; d)
The taking was done without the consent of the owner; e) The taking away is
accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon
things.

For theft to apply it necessary that there was intent to gain. In the case
at bar, Oby Juan had not intent to gain because of the circumstance that there
was no means of food during that time.

In regards with number 3 of Article 308, it cannot be considered an

enclosed property because it was ruined by the typhoon, if only Mr. Pal
Patin had ensured the day after the typhoon to secure his warehouse, there
could be theft. The warehouse was left for an approximate 5 days, which can
give Oby Juan the impression that the Warehouse was left by its owner.

The theft done cannot be considered aggravated because it was done

five days after the typhoon happened, for it to be considered aggravated, the
crime should be done during the calamity as what Article 14 par. 7 of the
Revised Penal Code describes.

Counterarguments:

Oby Juan should be charged of the crime of Qualified theft and should
be considered aggravated under Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code, since
Oby Juan stole the goods in the warehouse of Mr. Pal Patin, which is his
employer and the fact that the act was done during a calamity.

Oby Juan, without the permission of Mr. Pal Patin, willingly stole the
goods, therefore he is entitled to the crime of theft.

2
Rebuttal of counterarguments:

Oby Juan, when he saw the warehouse, abandoned, ruined by the

typhoon, he took the chance to get grocery goods to survive and give to his
family. He did not intent to gain from the said act, and has done it for lack of
food in the area.

The stealing was done 5 days after the typhoon happened, hence, there
was no intent or malice to gain through calamity.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the theft done by Oby Juan cannot be charged against him
and cannot be considered aggravated as well as qualified because for the
theft to prosper, all the elements should be present.

Item 5 of the elements in Art. 308, intent to gain, was not present in
the case and the provision of Art. 310 does not stand in this case because it
happened five days after the typhoon and the warehouse was left abandoned
by its owner.