Lim, Michelle B.

Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Region

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff

- versus - Criminal Case No. 12345-H

ROMULO TAKAD, Defendant Violation of R.A. 6539

(Anti-Carnapping Act)

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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT

COME NOW DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submit this Memorandum in the above-entitled case and aver that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The prosecution failed to establish ownership of the vehicle subject of this case and to
present clear and convincing evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
herein named committed the offense as charged.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A complaint was filed by Zenny Aguirre on November 22, 2003 as the duly authorized
representative of Bayan Development Corporation (BDC), against Romulo Takad for willful
violation of R.A. 6739, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 2003, the Bayan Development Corporation (BDC), represented by its Account
Officer Zenny Aguirre, extended a group loan to SCCPPTODA amounting to 480,000.00 pesos,
evidenced by a promissory note, chattel mortgage and Kasunduan to that effect. Ma. Teresa
Lacsamana was one of the “borrowers” in this transaction and received a share of 80,000.00
pesos. After the loan was granted, BDC released the tricycle to Lacsamana, who was
accompanied by her live-in partner Romulo Takad. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official
Receipt and Car Registration were in the name of Lacsamana. The loan was to be paid within a
period of thirty months. However, Lacsamana failed to comply with her obligation. Her last
payment was for the month of July 2003. Upon her default, BDC repossessed the tricycle on
October 2, 2003 by virtue of the authority granted to it by the aforementioned Kasunduan.
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
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. The vehicle 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
arrears on or before October 17, 2003. However, she again failed to do so. On October 18,
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, Takad
replied by saying, “Wag na wag kung 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 20, 2003, the tricycle was given to the new assignee
Carlos Parlade, who also resided within Pasig City. On or about 1 o’clock in the morning of
November 21, 2003, Parlade came home and changed his clothes. When he returned outside to
chain the tricycle, he saw it being pushed away at a distance of about 5 meters from his home.
The shocked Parlade shouted at the person pushing the tricycle. Under the illumination of a big
streetlight, the carnapper turned and faced Parlade, kick-started the tricycle, and drove away at
about twice the usual speed of other tricycles. During his flight, he passed Mario Mankas, a
neighbor and acquaintance of Parlade, who was bent over while washing his hands. Because of
his position, he could not clearly see the face of the carnapper, but he could reasonably identify
the build of his body. On 7 o’clock in the morning of the same day, Parlade informed BDC,
through Aguirre, of the aforementioned carnapping. During the day, Aguirre, Parlade and
Mankas gave their statements to the police. Takad was arrested and subsequently identified by
both Parlade and Mankas as the carnapper. However, the accused claims that he could not
have committed the crime as he was peacefully sleeping alone in his home on the night of the
incident, seeing as his live-in partner Lacsamana was currently in Singapore.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused Romulo Takad is liable for violation of R.A. 6739?

ARGUMENTS

THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. 6739. 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 against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things. 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.
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
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 this case. First is the intent
to gain and second is the unlawful taking is the taking of the vehicle without the consent of the
owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
I. Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) is not the owner of the tricycle that
the accused have allegedly carnapped, it is owned by Lacsamana.

When BDC granted the loan to Lacsamana in the amount of P80, 000.00, she became
the owner of said amount and has acquired the right to use it. The tricycle she acquired from
the money is her property. Lacasama only needs to pay BDC the same amount granted to her,
including the interest if there is any and even she executed a chattel mortgage in favor of BDC,
repossession of the tricycle without the appropriate proceeding is illegal. Furthermore, the
Kasunduan signed by Lacsamana 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 to BDC as payment for the loan. It did not provide that upon
default on certain installments, the tricycle could be immediately assigned to somebody else.

II. Lacsamana and Takad own the tricycle in co-ownership. Even though it was
only Lacsamana, Takad’s common-law wife, who contracted the loan with BDC
and the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official Receipt and Car Registration
were also in her name, Takad is considered as co-owner of the tricycle based
on Article 147 of the Family Code. 2 Sec. 14, Act No. 1508

“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.”

Therefore, as co-owner and 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
an equal right as same of Lacsamana with regards to the tricycle.

III. It is noted that both statements of the witnesses shows that they are not
definite as to the identity of Takad as the carnapper. Zenny Aguirre only
presumed that it was Takad who carnapped the vehicle due to the latter’s
statement to the effect that, “Wag na wag kung makikita „yan sa Pasig!”
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
AGUIRRE’S TESTIMONIES (CROSS-EXAMINATION):

“Q. MR. PARLADE TOLD YOU THAT HE SAW A MAN DRIVING AWAY WITH THE TRICYCLE, IS THAT
RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. HE ALSO TOLD YOU THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, HE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE MAN BECAUSE HE
WAS DRIVING AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. THEY DID NOT KNOW HIM BUT THEN HE RECOGNIZED HIM BECAUSE THEY FACED EACH
OTHER.
Q. BUT MR. PARLADE TOLD YOU THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE ACCUSED TAKAD PERSONALLY?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. DID MR. PARLADE TELL YOU THAT HE WAS ABLE TO SEE THE MAN‟S APPEARANCE AS WELL
AS HIS FACE?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND WHEN YOU HEARD FROM MR. PARLADE THAT THE TRICYCLE HAD BEEN STOELN, YOU
THOUGHT RIGHT AWAY THAT IT WAS THE ACCUSED TAKAD WHO DID IT, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR. THAT FORMED IN MY MIND.
Q. YOU THOUGHT THAT THE THIEF WAS THE ACCUSED TAKAD BECAUSE HE WARNED YOU
AGAINST HIS SEEING THE TRICYCLE IN PASIG, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND YOU TOLD PARLADE ABOUT WHO YOU THOUGHT TOOK THE TRICYCLE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND, BASED ON YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED TAKAD, MR. PARLADE AGREED WITH YOU?
A. YES, SIR.”

ADDITIONAL TESTIMONIES OF MS. AGUIRRE

“Q.YOU SAID THAT, AFTER YOU REFUSED REDEMPTION OF THE TRICYCLE, ACCUSED TAKAD
SAID, “WAG NA WAG KONG MAKIKITA ANG TRICYCLE NA „YAN S A PASIG”. AND IT WAS THIS
REMARK THAT MADE YOU CONCLUDES THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO STOLE THE TRICYCLE. IS
THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. ARE YOU SURE THAT HE SAID WAS, “WAG NA WAG KONG MAKIKITA ANG TRICYCLE NA YAN
SA PASIG.” THAT IS ALL HE SAID?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. DID HE SAY, IN ADDITION, “KUNG MAKIKITA KO YAN SA PASIG, NANAKAWIN KO YANG
TRICYCLE NA YAN.” DID HE SAY THAT?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. IF HE DID NOT SAY “KUNG MAKIKITA KO YAN SA PASIG, NANAKAWIN KO YANG TRICYCLE NA
YAN”, THE IDEA THAT HE MEANT TO STEAL THE TRICYCLE IS ONLY YOUR IDEA. IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. HE COULD HAVE VERY WELL MEANT THAT “KUNG MAKIKITA KO YAN SA PASIG,
IDEDEMANDA KO KAYO NG CARNAPPING DAHIL WALA KAYONG KARAPATANG KUNIN ANG
TRICYCLE SA KANYA. THAT IS WHAT HE COULD HAVE MEANT. IS THAT RIGHT?
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
A. MAYBE, SIR.”

To establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot substitute
speculations and probabilities as a proof.

TESTIMONIES OF CARLOS PARLADE

“Q. YOU SAID IN YOUR SWORN STATEMENT THAT YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE MAYBUNGA
SECURITY FORCE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. YOUR WORK INVOLVED LOOKING FOR PERSONS WHO COMMIT CRIMES IN YOUR
BARANGAY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WERE YOU AWARE THEN THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR YOU, AS A WITNESS TO A CRIME, TO
GIVE A GOOD DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON WHOM YOU SAW STOLE YOUR TRICYCLE?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. YOU SAID THAT YOU SAW HIS FACE. DID YOU SEE IT CLEARLY?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. DID YOU NOTE THAT HE HAD FAIR OR LIGHT COMPLEXION?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. YOU ALSO NATURALLY NOTED THAT HE HAD SHORT CROP HAIR, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. YOU ALSO NOTICED THAT HE HAD PRONOUNCED JAWS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. BUT, ALTHOUGH YOU NOTED THESE DETAILS OF HIS FACE, YOU STILL DID NOT TELL THE
POLICE WHEN YOU REPORTED THE CRIME THAT HE HAD FAIR OR LIGHT COMPLEXION, IS THAT
RIGHT?
A. BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT ASK ME THOSE DETAILS.
Q. BUT, SINCE YOU KNEW BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT THOSE DETAILS WERE
IMPORTANT TO THE POLICE, WHEN YOU WERE NOT ASKED, YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO STILL
GIVE THE POLICE YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE FACE OF THIS PERSON?
A. I WAS NOT ABLE TO REMEMBER THOSE.
Q. PLEASE GO OVER YOUR SWORN STATEMENT AND TELL US IF YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE
THOSE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED THAT YOU MENTIONED?
A. I SAID HERE, IN ANSWER TO #14, “MEDYO MAIGSI AND BUHOK.”
Q. BUT THE OTHER DESCRIPTION THAT HE IS OF LIGHT COMPLEXION AND HAS PRONOUNCED
JAWS, DID YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR STATEMENT?
A. NO, SIR. ”

ADDITIONAL TESTIMONIES OF PARLADE

“Q: YOU SAID THAT, AS YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR HOUSE, YOU SAW THE ACCUSED PUSHING
THE TRICYCLE AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
Q. NOW, YOU SAID THAT ACCUSED WITH THE TRICYCLE, YOU SAW FIVE METERS FROM YOU, IS
THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS SOMEWHAT NEAR YOU?
A. YES, SIR, “MEDYO MALAPIT SIYA.”
Q. NOW, YOU SAID “MEDYO MALAPIT SIYA,” PLEASE READ WHAT YOU SAID IN YOU SWORN
STATEMENT ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF THE ACCUSED FROM YOU AT THE TIME.
A.“ NANG MAKITA KO MEDYO MALAYO NA ANG TRICYCLE NA ITINUTULAK NG ISANG TAO.”
Q. YOU SAID WHEN YOU TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS “MEDYO MALAPIT” BUT YOU SAID IN YOUR
AFFIDAVIT, “MEDYO MALAYO,” WHICH IS CORRECT?
A. I SAID HE WAS A BIT FAR BECAUSE HE WAS FIVE METERS FROM ME.
Q. YOU SAID THAT YOU SHOUTED AT THE MAN ON THE TRICYCLE AND HE LOOKED BACK BUT
HE SUDDENLY STARTED THE MOTOR AND DROVE AWAY WITH THE TRICYCLE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE MAN WAS TO FLEE FROM YOU, HE MERELY GLANCED BACK, IS
THAT RIGHT?
A. HINDI PO, OPO, MEDYO MATAGAL PO.
Q. OPO, HINDI PO, WHAT IS REALLY YOUR ANSWER?
A. OPO, MEDYO MATAGAL PO.”

There are apparent inconsistencies on the affidavit and the testimonies given in the
court as shown above. These would lead us to the conclusion that Parlade wasn’t sure himself if
it was actually the accused Takad he saw pushing the tricycle away.

The other witness presented by the prosecution was Mario Mankas. He said that he was
playing computer in a neighbor’s house and while he was finish washing his hands at the gate in
the front yard, he saw Parlade running after a tricycle. He also added that because the tricycle
was running at a very fast speed, he had only a brief glance of the driver. Said witness also
stated in paragraph 5 of his affidavit that “hindi ko gaanong namukhaan dahil nakayuko ako.”
In fact, the man driving the tricycle away did not move but just sat still holding the steering bars
of the tricycle according to him. Mankas also said that the he was able to identify the accused
because of the shape of his body but there is no notable distinction in the body shape of the
accused in order to merit his identification apart from the others who has the same body built.

IV. The tricycle subject in this case was never recovered in the hands of Takad. Its
location is still in question.

The tricycle that the defendant had been allegedly carnapped 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.

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.
Lim, Michelle B.
Legal Writing – Sunday, 10:00 A.M – 11:00 A.M
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the above mentioned, 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.