Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 12345-H

FOR: Violation of Republic

-versus- Act No. 6739, otherwise
known as Anti-Carnapping
Act
ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

Accused, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case and
aver that:

THE CASE

A complaint was filed by Zenny Aguirre, authorized representative of

Bayan Development Corporation, BDC for brevity, against Romulo Takad for
violation of Republic Act No. 6739, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping
Act of 1972.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Sometime in May 2003, BDC through its Account Officer, Zenny

Aguirre, extended a group loan to Sakbayan members and the members of
Tricycle Operators and Drivers Associations amount to Php 480,000.00 which
is divided among its six members for the sole purpose of buying a tricycle.
Ma. Teressa Lacsamana (Lacsamana), a member of the said Samanhan,
received a share amounting to Php 80,000.00.

Relative to this, a promissory note, chattel mortgage and “Kasunduan”

was executed by the parties. Under the ‘Kasunduan”, the loan is payable
within thirty (30) months with thirty-six (36) percent interest rate per annum.

1
 After the loan was granted, BDC released the tricycle to Lacsamana,
who as accompanied by her live-in partner Romulo Takad. The said tricycle
was registered under the name of Lacsamana as owner.

However, Lacsaman failed to comply with her obligation to pay

prompting BDC to repossessed the tricycle by virtue of the authority granted
by the aforementioned “Kasunduan”. BDC, through Aguirre gave Lacsamana
a chance to reacquire the tricycle and set that payment shall be made on or
before October 17, 2007, fortunately she was able to raise the money but upon
their arrival in the BDC office they were already closed.

Morning of the very next day, Lacsamana, together with her live-in
partner, Romulo Takad, went to Aguirre and pleaded that they be allowed to
redeem the tricycle but Aguirre, as instructed by her superior, denied their
plea. In the said incident, Takad, who was with Lacsamana at that time,
allegedly uttered, “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.”

On November 20, 2007, the subject tricycle was given to a new

assignee, Carlos Parlade. However, before a contract could be executed the
tricycle was stolen around 1:00 am of November 21, 2007 near Parlade’s
residence in Pasig City. During investigation, Parlade, and another witness,
Mario Mankas, identified the accused as the perpetrator. Both alleged that
they saw Takad driving the tricycle away from Parlade’s residence.

ISSUE

I. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED ROMULO TAKAD IS LIABLE

FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. 6739, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT.

ARGUMENTS

ROMULO TAKAD IS NOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF R.A

6739

Carnapping is defined as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor

vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things1.

To constitute carnapping, the following elements must be present:

1
Section 2, R.A 6739

2
 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 or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

After scrupulous examination of the evidence presented, it appears that

the prosecution failed to prove that all the elements of the crime of carnapping
are present in this case.

I.
Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) is not the owner of the subject
tricycle allegedly carnapped by the accused.

In order to convict the accused, the prosecution must be able to show

that all the elements of Anti-Carnapping Act are present in the case at bar. As
such, it is deemed necessary to discuss the ownership of the vehicle involved
in connection with the third element stated above.

The contract entered into between BDC and Lacsamana is that of simple
loan or mutuum. Based on Article 1953 of the New Civil Code, a person who
receives a loan of money or other fungible thing acquires the ownership
thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind
and quality.

When BDC granted the loan, Lacsamana became the owner of said
amount and has acquired the right to appropriate the same. Therefore, when
Lacsamana used the money loan to buy the tricycle, such vehicle becomes her
property and not of BDC. She is only obligated to pay the amount loan,
including the stipulated interest.

BDC may claim ownership over the said vehicle when Lacsamana
executed a Chattel Mortgage in favor of the former. However, upon default,
BDC should have instituted a foreclosure proceeding of the chattel mortgage
in accordance with Rule 68, of the Cules of court or Republic Act No. 3135,
whichever is applicable. Thus, repossession of the tricycle without the
appropriate proceeding is illegal.

Moreover, the presence of the “Kasunduan” only provides that in case

of default, the tricycle shall be voluntarily delivered to the Treasurer of the
group for management to ensure that all income derived from it shall be given

3
to BDC as payment for the loan. The language of the said “Kasunduan” did
not provide that upon default on certain installments, the tricycle could be
immediately assigned to another person without consent or knowledge of the
registered owner. In fact, it is stated in Section 20.1 of the said document that
“Hatakin ang tricycle o mga tricycle kasama ng linya (TODA) at/o prangkisa
ng tiwaling kasapi na kabilang sa Chattel Mortgage Contract sa BDC.” It is
very clear that the repossession should be made in accordance with the Chattel
Mortgage.

II.
Lacsamana and Takad own the tricycle as co-owners.

Although it was only Lacsamana, Takad’s common-law wife, who contracted

and obtained the loan with BDC and the registration of the said vehicle in
Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official Receipt and Car Registration were
under her name, Takad is considered as co-owner of the tricycle based on
Article 147 of the Family Code2, to wit:

“Art.147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to

marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
equal shares and the property acquired by both of them
through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules
on co- ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary,
properties acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For
purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed
to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the
former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the
family and the household.”

Thus, as co-owner, and for the sake of argument, assuming that it was
really Takad who took the tricycle, he could not be validly convicted with the
crime of carnapping as herein charged because he has in fact a right equal as
that of Lacsamana. Absence of any evidence to the contrary, the properties
owned by them during their cohabitation are acquired through their joint
efforts.

III.
The vehicle subject of this case, which is a tricycle, was never recovered
in the hands of Takad. Its location is still in question.

2
Sec. 14, Act No. 1508

4
 The subject tricycle allegedly carnapped by the accused was never
recovered nor found in his possession. Neither any evidence was presented to
prove that the tricycle came to his possession after it was repossessed by BDC.

In light of the prosecution’s evidence, this honorable court should not

be convinced that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. “The rule is clear. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of its
own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. The
slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has
never committed, let alone when no less than the capital punishment is
imposed, would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go
unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated.3”

“On the whole then, the unsatisfactory evidence for the prosecution
casts serious doubts as to the guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of
moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence
which the Bill of Rights guarantees the accused. It is apropos to repeat the
doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law,
synonymous with guilt the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of
innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.4”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of accused 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.

Manila City, Philippines, this 23rd day of November 2019.

3People v. Manzano, 227 SCRA 780, 787 [1993]

46 People v. Dismuke, 234 SCRA 51, 61 [1994], citing People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil.
107 [1971]; People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992].

5
 By:

ATTY. AYA A. MONTERO

Counsel for the Accused
IBP Lifetime No. 1234567
PTR No. 1234567
Roll of Attorney No. 2022-123456
MCLE Compliance No. III – 0987

Copy furnished:

Atty. Willy Cruz

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Manila, Philippines

Hon. Luz King

City Prosecutor
Palace of Justice Pasig City

The Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch _____ Pasig City

Greetings:

Kindly submit the foregoing memorandum for the approval anf consideration
of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof, sans appearance, san
further arguments

Thank you.

AYA A. MONTERO