Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City, Branch 123

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

– versus – CRIM. CASE No. 12345-H

Violation of R.A 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act)

ROMULO C. TAKAD,
Accused,
x------------------------------------------------x

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM
Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

The Case
The prosecution charged Romulo C. Takad with the crime of violation of RA 6539 (Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972) for taking a motorcycle with side car (tricycle), belonging to Bayan
Development Corporation (BDC) which reassigned the said tricycle to Carlos Parlade when the
original assignee, the accused’s live-in partner, Ma. Teresa Lacsamana defaulted on her installment
payments. Romulo Takad denied the charge against him.

The Facts
On May 2003, the Bayan Development Corporation (BDC), represented by its Account Officer
Zenny Aguirre, extended a group loan to Sakbayan members and members of Tricycle Operators and
Drivers Associations (TODA) amounting to P 480,000.00, evidenced by a promissory note, chattel
mortgage and Kasunduan to that effect. Ma. Teresa Lacsaman was one of the borrowers in this
transaction and received a share of P 80,000.00.

The BDC released the tricycle to Lacsamana after the loan was granted. She was accompanied
by her live-in partner Romulo Takad. The Land Transportation Office Official Receipt and Car
Registration were in the name of Lacsamana.

The loan was to be paid within a period of thirty (30) months. However, Lacsamana failed to
comply with her obligation. Her last payment was for the month of July 2003. Because of this, the
BDC repossessed the tricycle on October 2, 2003 by virtue of the authority granted to it by the
aforementioned Kasunduan. Lacsamana requested for more time to pay the balance of the loan, but
her request was denied by BDC. There was no court order authorizing either the transfer of ownership
or repossession of the tricycle.

Page 1 of 5
 The tricycle was then given to Ricardo Marasigan, the treasurer of the group for management.
During this period, BDC allowed Lacsamana to redeem the tricycle by paying the outstanding balance
on or before October 17, 2003. However, she again failed to do so.

On October 22, 2003, Lacsamana and Takad went to the office of BDC. They offered to pay
the outstanding balance and redeem the tricycle. However, BDC refused their offer. According to
Aguirre, Takada replied “Huwag na huwag kong makikita yan sa Pasig!” However, according to Takad
and Lacsamana, he simply pleaded with Aguirre, hoping that he could avoid seeing the tricycle and
hurting his feelings.

On November 2007, the tricycle was given to the new assignee Carlos Parlade, who also
resides within Pasig City.

On November 21, 2007, around 1 o’ clock in the morning when Parlade went outside to chain
the tricycle, he saw it being pushed away at a distance of five (5) meters from his house. The shocked
Parlade shouted at the person pushing the tricycle. Under the illumination of the street light, the person
turned and faced Parlade, kick-started the tricycle and drove away at about the twice of the usual speed
of the other tricycles.

In the afternoon of the same day, Parlade gave his statement to the police. Takad was arrested
and subsequently identified by both Parlade and Manakas as the carnapper. The accused, Takad,
claims that he could not have committed the crime as he was sleeping alone in his house as his live-in
partner Lacsamana was currently in Singapore.

ISSUE
Whether or not the accused Romulo Takad liable for violation of R.A 6739 (Anti-Carnapping
Act).

ARGUMENTS

I
THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF
RA 6739 (ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT)
Carnapping is defined by the law as the taking with intent to gain of a motor vehicle belonging
to another without the latter’s consent or by means of violence or intimidation of persons or by using
force upon things.1

Specifically, the elements of the crime are as follows:

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
4. That the taking was without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

A careful examination of the evidence presented shows that the prosecution failed to prove that
all the elements of the crime of carnapping are present in the case.

1 Page 2 of 5
Section 2, R.A. 6739
 II
THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES AS SHOWN ON THE COURT’S
STENOGRAPHIC NOTES THAT THEY NOT DEFINITE AS TO THE IDENTITY OF
TAKAD AS THE CARNAPPER
Aguirre presumed that it was Takad who carnapped the vehicle due to the latter’s statement to
the effect that “huwag na huwag kong makikita yan sa Pasig!” However, the said statement cannot be
taken proof of the intent of Takad to do an unlawful act once he sees the vehicle in Pasig. Relative to
this testimony during the cross examination of Aguirre, that it was only her idea that he meant to steal
the tricycle in Pasig City.

Hence, the speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the
innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account.

III
DESCRIPTION OF MARIO MANAKAS REGARDING THE CARNAPPER IS
UNCLEAR
During the cross-examination of Mario Manakas, he said that after he finished playing
computer in a neighbor’s house and while washing his hands he saw Parlade running after a tricycle.
He also added that because the tricycle was running at a fast speed he only had a brief glance of the
driver. The said witness also stated in his affidavit that, “hindi ko namukhaan dahil nakayuko ako.’
Also according to him, the man driving the tricycle away did not move but just sat still holding the
steering bars of the tricycle. In addition, Manakas also said that he was able to identify the accused
because of the shape of the body. However, there is no notable distinction in the body shape of the
accused.

IV
THE VEHICLE SUBJECT IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS A TRICYCLE WAS NEVER
RECOVERED IN THE HANDS OF TAKAD
The tricycle to have been carnapped by Takad was never recovered in his possession. Neither
any evidence was presented to prove that the tricycle came to his possession after it was repossessed
by BDC.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff by:

FINDING Romulo Takad not liable for the commission of the crime of carnapping as defined
in R.A. 6739.

Respectfully submitted.

Pasig City, Philippines, this 29th of November 2007.

Page 3 of 5
 PAULO A CRUZ
Counsel for Romulo C. Takad
Atty. Roll No. 17097
IBP 123456 5-10-23
PTR 1346523 8-1-23
MCLE Compliance No III-123

Copy furnished:

Prosec. Isidro T. De Leon

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Pasig City

Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5