Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region

Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - Crim. Case No. 12345- H

Violation of R.A. 6539

ROMULO TAKAD, (Anti-Carnapping Act)

Accused.

x--------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

The public prosecution and unto this honorable court most respectfully submit
this memorandum.

The Case

Plaintiff through the undersigned Public prosecutor charges Romulo Takad with
the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act). Plaintiff claims that on or
about November 21, 2007, in Pasig City within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the accused, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner,
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and drive away a
Kawasaki motorcycle with sidecar, colored black, bearing plate No. TU-9952, with a
value of P80,000.00, belonging to Bayan Development Corporation, represented by
Zenny G. Aguirre, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

The Facts

At the trial, the plaintiff gave its version through 3 witnesses namely Zenny
Aguirre, Carlos P. Parlade, and Mario S. Mankas.

Zenny Aguirre an employee of Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) testified

on her version of the events. As a representative of BDC, she extended a group loan to
Ma. Teresa Lacsamana sometime in May 2003 amounting to P480,000.00 but her
share in it was P80,000.00 payable in 30 months as evidenced by a promissory note,
the chattel mortgage, and a Kasunduan marked as Exhibit “A.” She stated that after
granting the loan to Ms. Lacsamana, as a representative of BDC, they released the
tricycle to Ms. Lacsamana registering its OR/CR under her name and that was the time
she met the accused Takad because he came with her to get the tricycle. She stated
that Ms. Lacsamana did not comply with the paying period as she sometimes failed to
pay and her last payment was for the month of July 2007 and as a consequence for
defaulting her loan, BDC pulled out the trycicle from her on October 2, 2007 as under
the Kasunduan if the borrower was unable to pay, the tricycle could be pulled out from
him. She stated that the tricycle was given to the treasurer of the group, Mr. Ricardo
Marasigan for him to manage for more or less 15 days. After the 15 days have elapsed,
Zenny Aguirre agreed with Ms. Lacsamana to give her until October 17 within which to
redeem the tricycle and, if not, they will permanently repossess the tricycle. However,
according to her, Ms. Lacsamana did not comply with this undertaking prompting BDC
to get the tricycle from the treasurer of their group on October 18. She stated that on
October 22, Ms. Lacsamana and Mr. Takad went to the BDC office and wanted to pay
the outstanding balance of her loan so that the tricycle would be released and they were
not allowed to pay for the said outstanding balance. She stated that after she did not
allow them to pay the outstanding balance on the loan, Takad said, “ Huwag na huwag
kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.” According to her, BDC kept the tricycle until
November 20 and after that, they gave it to Carlos Parlade, the new assignee but there
is no document which can show this assignment to Mr. Parlade for before they could
draw up one, at 1:00 o’ clock on the early morning of November 21, Mr. Parlade told her
that the tricycle was missing. According to her, as a course of action, she went to see
Mr. Parlade and asked him for details regarding how the tricycle was lost. According to
her, Mr. Parlade told him that he saw the tricycle being driven away by a small man,
with short hair, and a face towel on his shoulder.

Carlos Parlade, the new assignee of the tricycle testified on his version of the
events. He recalled that on November 21, 2007, he was in his house and at around 1:00
o’clock in the morning he lost his tricycle which he got from the BDC. He stated that at
that time he had just entered his house and since it was raining and he was wet, he
went to change his clothes. Thereafter, he went out of the house to chain the tricycle but
was not able to do so because he saw someone pushing the tricycle away. He stated
that after he saw the accused pushing the tricycle away he shouted at him prompting
the accused to turn and face him and for this reason he claims to have recognized the
face of the accused. He claimed that the one he saw was “malapad ng konti ang
katawan at medyo maiksi ang buhok.”

Parlade described the place where the event happened as a lighted place by a
big streetlight 5 meters away from his house.
 Mario S. Mankas, a neighbor of Carlos Parlade testified on his version of the
events. He recalled that on November 21, 2007 at around 2 A.M. he was playing
computer at a neighbor’s house about 10 meters away from the house of Carlos
Parlade when he saw him running after a tricycle. But he then changed his statement
saying that at the time the tricycle of Carlos Parlade was stolen, he just finished playing
computer and he was washing his hand at the gate in the front yard and as he was
washing his hands, he saw the tricycle and Carlos Parlade running after it. He stated
that he only had a brief glance of the driver of the tricycle and he stated in his affidacit
that "hindi ko gaanong namukhaan dahil nakayuko ako.” But he was able to positively
identify the accused as Romulo Takad when he saw him.

In the trial, the accused also presented his version of the events through himself
and through Ms. Ma. Teresa Lacsamana.

In his version of the events, Romulo Takad, the accused, belie the claim that he
stole the tricycle subject of this case. He claims that contradictory to the claims of
witness Zenny Aguirre, they were the ones who brought the tricycle to the house of
Ricardo Marasigan because Ms. Aguirre requested them to bring it there for the reason
that the tricycle was to be in the care and custody of the treasurer of their group. He
also refuted that the claim of Ms. Aguirre that the tricycle was pulled out by the BDC
from Ms. Lacsamana on November 18 is not true as he recalls that she took the tricycle
from the treasurer of the group on October 18, 2006 and that he remembers this
because there was a verbal agreement between Ms. Lacsamana and Ms. Aguirre that
Ms. Aguirre could redeem the tricycle by paying her arrears on October 17, a reason for
Ms. Lacsamana to mortgage her car to raise the money. He also claims that Ms.
Lacsamana was unable to pay what she owed on October 17 because they arrived late
at the office of BDC and was already closed. The following day, they went to the house
of the treasurer of the group to request him to accompany them to BDC but they found
out that the tricycle had already been taken from him. He claims that Ms. Lacsamana
and him requested Ms. Aguirre to allow them to pay what was due on the tricycle but
she would not allow them. He also belied the claim of Ms. Aguirre regarding his warning
concerning the tricycle. According to him, he pleaded with Ms. Aguirre that he hopes not
to see the tricycle in their place because it was going to hurt them if they are to see it
considering that they spent a lot of time and sweat looking after the tricycle and it would
pain them so much to see it there in which Ms. Aguirre responded by saying “okay.”

Takad claims that between the time he spoke to Ms. Aguirre and the time he was
taken by the police officers on November 21, 2008, he did not see the tricycle in Pasig
and that he had no information that it was in Pasig.

Belying the claim of Carlos Parlade, he claims that on the early morning of
November 21, 2007, he was alone at his house sleeping because Ms. Lacsamana his
live-in-partner was in Singapore where he was awakened by the police who took him.
Also belying the claim that he was the one being described by Mr. Parlade, he showed
evidences of how he looked on November 21, 2007; his picture taken at pariancillo after
the police arrested him. He also claims that despite his hurt feelings that the tricycle was
taken away from Ms. Lacsamana, he will only do a legal way to repossess the tricycle
by paying BDC what they owe them. He also claims that it was only when the tricycle
was stolen that he came to know that it was given to Carlos Parlade.

In her version of the events, Maria Teresa Lacsamana supported the claims of
the accused. She claims that Ms. Aguirre gave her a deadline of October 17 to pay her
arrears but was unable to do so since she was only able to get the money in the
afternoon of October 17 and the BDC was already closed and when she returned the
next day to pay, Ms. Aguirre did not accept her payment. She also claims that Romulo
Takad told Ms. Aguirre that if she will not accept the balance they were tendering, if
possible that he should not see the tricycle in Pasig because it was going to hurt him.

The Issue

1. Whether or not Romula Takad committed the crime of carnapping.

Argument

Romulo Takad committed acts in violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. R.A. No.
6539, defines carnapping 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 things. The anti-carnapping law is a special law,
different from the crimes of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. The
anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. The
elements of the crime of carnapping are:

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 is 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.

Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, in this instant case, as an element of the crime
of carnapping, is an internal act and hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the
tricycle. In the instant case, it is proven that these elements of carnapping were present.
Witnesses, in their statements, saw accused, Romulo Takad, took the subject tricycle
and drove it away from the premises of Carlos Parlade with whom the subject tricycle
was assigned by BDC. His intent to gain is presumed from his act of unlawfully taking
the subject tricycle from its owner.

Such acts of the accused constitute the crime of carnapping, therefore, he must
be held liable for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. Positive identification of
witnesses, Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas, positively identified the accused as the
person who unlawfully took the tricycle, subject of herein case.

In People v. De la Cruz (GR No. 141162-62, July 11, 2002), the Court declared
that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive
on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of
denial.

In the present case, the accused, Romulo Takad, was positively and
categorically identified by the witnesses. No improper motive was imputed on these
witnesses who positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the offense. Their
testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. They have no reason to perjure. Said
witnesses were moved by their desire to see that justice is to be done.

In the case, accused denied the acts imputed against him and stated that he was
at home, sleeping, during the commission of the crime. Such defense of alibi is
generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution, not only
because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can be easily
fabricated. The accused in the instant case failed to meet the requisites for alibi to be
considered as a valid defense.

It is not enough that the he was somewhere else when the crime transpired. He
must likewise duly establish that he was so far away that it was not physically possible
for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at or about the time of
its commission. Moreover, he failed to present witnesses who may corroborate his
statement. It is a time-honored principle that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the
witnesses’ positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. For it to
prosper, the court must be convinced that there was physical impossibility on the part of
the accused to have been at the locus criminis or the place where the crime is
committed at the time of the commission of the crime.
 JOSE IGNATIUS D. PEREZ

Public Prosecutor

2nd Flr. Olympia Bldg.

445 Buendia Avenue

Makati City

Atty. Roll No. 77777

IBP 777777 12-25-26

PTR 7777777 01-02-26

Email: joseignatius@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Paulo A. Cruz

346 Presidential Avenue

Paranaque City