REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 17
Valenzuela, City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Complainant,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 98741

Violation of RA 10883 or The
New Anti- Carnapping Act of 2016

Roberto Gomez and Diego Gomez

Accused.

X------------------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM

Accused DIEGO GOMEZ, through his undersigned counsel,

respectfully submits this Memorandum and state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for violation of RA 10883 or The New Anti-

Carnapping Act of 2016. The basis for the charge was the affidavit-
complaint executed by Zenaida De Guzman as a representative of
Manantal Cooperative, Inc. on August 12, 2018 charging Roberto
Gomez and herein accused Diego Gomez for allegedly carnapping a
tricycle with plate number (YY220) and Chassis Number (232). The said
tricycle is under a Chattel Mortgage Agreement between Manantal
Cooperative Inc. and Roberto Gomez that was used as a security for
the loan obtained by the latter amounting to 80,000 pesos payable by
monthly installment. The prosecution alleged that the subject tricycle
was car-napped by the accused Roberto and Diego Gomez, the latter
being the son of the former, when Zenaida purportedly failed to seize
the motor vehicle hours after she saw Diego driving the same with
Roberto as a passenger.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Private Complainant, Manantal Cooperative Inc. granted accused

Roberto Gomez’s application for loan with a principal amount of 80,000
pesos. Under the said Contract of Loan, Roberto obligates himself to
pay the loaned amount on an installment basis for a period of 3 years.
As stipulated, an amount of 15,000 pesos shall be paid monthly to
Manantala Cooperative, Inc. with 1% interest per month or 12% annual
interest compounded. In addition, to secure payment of the loan, the
parties entered into a Chattel Mortgage Contract over the subject
tricycle. Complainant’s action was allegedly brought about by Roberto’s
failure to pay two (2) consecutive monthly installment due on the 15th
day of June and July, 2018. By reason thereof, on August 12, 2018,
Zenaida claims that while she was on her way to the residence of the
Gomez’s she saw accused Diego driving the tricycle away with Roberto
on the passenger seat. Zenaida under the impression that Diego and
Roberto were driving off the vehicle for the purpose of concealing the
same from Manantal Cooperative in order to further prevent its seizure,
rushed to the nearest police station and filed a criminal complaint of
carnapping against accused father and son Roberto and Diego. When
the police arrived at the Gomez’s residence, they immediately
undertook the arrest of both the accused. No warrant of arrest has been
presented nor the police officers explained the grounds why an arrest
was being made. The police officers only informed Roberto that since
the tricycle cannot be found within the premises and based upon the
earlier complaint filed by Zenaida that they shall be put under the police
custody.

Private Complainant alleged that Roberto and Diego shall be held

criminally liable as provided under Section 3 of RA 10883. It claims that
Diego as the driver and Roberto as the principal debtor are guilty of
taking the motor vehicle (tricycle) allegedly belonging to another without
the latter’s consent hence constitutes an offense of car-napping.

Anent the participation of accused Diego in the alleged criminal

act, it shall take judicial notice that Diego was a minor, only 17 years of
age, when the offense was allegedly committed.

STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUES

In so far as accused Diego Gomez is concerned, the issues in this

case are:

a) Whether or not Diego was a minor at the time the alleged act was
committed;

b) Whether or not he acted without discernment, assuming that his

age of minority was sufficiently proved;

c) Whether or not the criminal complaint against Diego shall be

dismissed;

ARGUMENTS

a) Accused was 17 years of age at the time of the alleged criminal

act
Section 6 second paragraph of Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile
Justice Act and Welfare Act 2006 provides that “A child above fifteen
(15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act”.

As a proof of minority, submitting together with this memorandum

is the original PSA copy of Diego’s original certificate of live birth
hereinafter referred as “Exhibit 1” which shows that Diego was born on
June 12, 2001. For additional supporting proof of minority, submitting
herein as well the copy of original baptismal certificate marked as
“Exhibit 2”. Thus, as a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age,
Diego falls under the above mentioned exemption from criminal liability.
SEC. 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a child may be
determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or
any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these
documents, age may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of
doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
1

The given documentary evidence provides clear and convincing

proof that Diego was indeed a minor on August 12, 2018.

b) Diego acted without discernment when the alleged offense took

place;

To further qualify accused Diego from incurring criminal liability if

there would be any, as a minor between 15 to 18 years of age, RA 9344
requires that the he acted without discernment. Discernment is defined
as the mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong and its consequences.2 The Court
also explained in the case of People v Doquena the definition of
discernment as an exempting circumstance, to wit:

“Discernment is more than the mere understanding between right

and wrong. Rather, it means the mental capacity of a minor […] to
fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act (People v.
Navarro, [CA] [51 O.G. 4062]). Hence, in judging whether a minor
accused acted with discernment, his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong, which may be
known and should be determined by considering all the
circumstances disclosed by the record of the case, his
appearance, his attitude and his behavior and conduct, not only
before and during the commission of the act, but also after and
even during the trial should be taken into consideration.”3
Private complainant failed to establish that Diego acted with
discernment, to the point that he knows that he is committing a criminal

1 Republic Act 9344

2 . PAO Memorandum Circular No. 7 Series of 2007
3 69 Phil 980 People v Doquena, 1939
act when Zenaida saw him driving the tricycle. Diego was merely
instructed by his father to drive the tricycle on August 12, 2018 and did
so without rejection as there’s nothing unusual with it since he’s been
driving the said tricycle for a regular basis. Diego also had no idea that
the said tricycle was a subject of any claim as he thought since his
family got it that his father owns the vehicle. Diego also as shown by
his acts during and after the alleged crime that he had no intention
whatsoever to take something in this case a motor vehicle that he
doesn’t own and without the consent of the true owner. It can be
deduced from Diego’s actuation that he had no idea regarding the
contract between his father and Manantal Cooperative neither that the
tricycle they are using was being foreclosed.

c) Diego is exempt from criminal liability as a minor who acted

without discernment thus the case against him shall be dismissed;

PAO Memorandum Circular No. 7 Series of 2007 provides:

Sec. 1. Standard Procedures in the initial stage of the case - In all
criminal cases where a CICL is involved, the Public Attorney, after
examination of the records of the case shall:
[xxx]
b) Move for the quashal or dismissal of the case, if the CICL
is exempt from criminal responsibility under Sections 6 and
58 of Republic Act No. 9344 [xxx]

As pointed out in the foregoing and pursuant to RA 9344, Diego

being a minor whose age is above 15 and above 18 years and who did
not act with discernment is deemed exempt from criminal liability. And
as such, pursuant to the above mentioned memorandum, the case
against such minor shall be moved for dismissal and that appropriate
intervention program shall commence.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be

dismissed for accused DIEGO GOMEZ is exempt from criminal liability
and that Intervention Program shall be ordered accordingly. Other
reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

ATTY. Arisse Barrera

Public Attorney – Counsel for Defendant
Public Attorney’s Office Caloocan City District Office
4 Floor Aurelio Bldg. II, 11th Ave. Grace Park, Caloocan City
th

PTR No. 7884

IBP No. 98745
MCLE Comp. No. IV-7878
Copy furnished:

ATTY. Jethro Avinante

Counsel for plaintiff
Avinante Law Office
321 Avinante Street, Chino Roces, Makati City