Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region

Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12345 - H

Violation of R.A. 6739

(Anti-Carnapping Act)


ROMULO TAKAD,

Defendant,

x---------------------------------/

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM

Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case;

The Case

The defendant, Romulo Takad, is accused of the crime of violation of R.A. 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act) for taking a motorcycle with sidecar (tricycle) bearing Plate No.
TU-9952 which is registered under his live-in partner’s, Ma. Teresa Lacsamana, name
with the LTO.

The Facts

On May 2003, SCCPPTODA 2 obtained a group loan from Bayan Development

Corporation, represented by Zenny G. Aguirre, amounting to Php 480,000.00. Ma.
Teresa Lacsamana using her part of the loan to buy 1 unit motorcycle with sidecar. Said
motorcycle with sidecar is the vehicle which Romula Takad is accused of car-napping.
On July 2003, Ms. Lacsamana incurred an unpaid balance amounting to Php
14,000.00. Due to the default in Lacsamana’s payments, BDC reposed the vehicle on
October 2, 2003 but BDC and Lacamsana had an unwritten agreement that
Lacsamana will pay the default amount on October 17, 2003. On October 17, 2003,
Lacsamana failed to pay but on October 18, 2003, after mortgaging her car for Php
100,000.00, Lacsamana and Takad asked BDC if they could settle their balances and
get the vehicle back. BDC refused to allow Lacsamana to pay and instead assigned the
vehicle to Carlo Paralade.

 On November 21, 2003, the said vehicle assigned to Carlo Parlade was missing
at around 1 o’clock in the morning from where he left it but was being brought away
from the premises. At around 1:30 in the afternoon, Parlade went to the police station
to report the missing vehicle.

The Issues

Whether or not Takad committed the car-napping?

Arguments

Firstly, the accused was not aware of the location of the vehicle and to whose
care it was given by BDC. The accused, in a sworn statement, said that he only knew
of Carlos Parlade when he was taken to the police station. In fact, Carlos Parlade ,
likewise, said that he did not know of Takad before he talked with Zenny Aguirre of
BDC.

Seconly, the process by which Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas identified the
accused was doubtful. Both Parlade and Mankas could not identify the thief in their
statements to the police. Their claims and descriptions of the thief became clearer after
seeing each other at the police station.

Thirdly, it is an inherent constitutional right that every person is entitled to due

process of law. Based on the evidences presented by the Prosecution, the act of BDC
in repossessing the vehicle is not right. They did not secure proper judicial decrees
allowing them to repossess the vehicle.

Wherefore, the Defence respectfully prays that a Decision be rendered finding the
Accused Romulo Takad not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of car-
napping and be adjudged civilly liable to indemnify his victims.

Respectfully submitted.

By:

Stephen Jasper Samson

Counsel for the Defendant

Copy Furnished:

Pros. ISIDRO DE LEON

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor’s Office Pasig City