This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 12345-H Violation of RA 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act)
ROMULO TAKAD, Accused. X==================================
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Comes now the public prosecution and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit tthis memorandum and state:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE The prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the AntiCarnapping Act. The accused, with intent to gain and without 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 value of P80,000.00 belonging to Bayan Development Corporation, represented by Zenny Aguirre, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
the subject tricycle was given to a new assignee. During investigation. Both alleged that they saw Takad driving the tricycle away from Parlade’s residence. 2003. defaulted in her loan. Teresa Lacsamana. she was unable to pay the amount on the date agreed upon. Relative to this. In pursuant to the Kasunduan. Lacsamana. the accounts officer of BDC.00 which is partitioned among its six (6) members. through Aguirre. Under the said Kasunduan. gave Lacsamana a chance to redeem the tricycle and set a period within which the latter must settle her obligation.” Subsequently. who was with Lacsamana at that time. Zennie Aguirre. uttered.000. together with her live-in partner. Romulo Takad. Carlos Parlade. as instructed by her superior.the latter being in default in the payment of her loan. BDC. So that five days thereafter. ISSUE/S: WHETHER OR NOT ROMULO TAKAD COMMITTED THE CRIME OF CARNAPPING. however. the tricycle was seized from the treasurer of the Samahan. was then extended the amount of EIGHTY-THOUSAND PESOS and as agreed upon. a member of said Samahan. “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig. Mario Mankas. payable for thirty (30) months with thirty-six percent (36) interest rate per annum and that said amount must be for the sole purpose of buying a tricycle. 2003 near the house of Parlade. a Kasuduan was entered into by BDC and Samahan on March 2003. Lacsamana. the six (6) members are to receive EIGHTY-THOUSAND PESOS each.STATEMENT OF FACTS Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) granted a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2 (Samahan) in the amount of 480. Ma. Parlade notified Aguirre that the tricycle was stolen at 1:00 in the morning of November 21. went to Aguirre and pleaded that they be allowed to redeem the tricycle but Aguirre. Takad. identified the accused as the perpetrator. and another witness. . denied their plea. So that on November 20. She had her last payment on July 2003. Said tricycle then was placed under the custody of the treasurer of the Samahan. she bought a tricycle which is now the subject of this case. barely four (4) months from the constitution of the Kasunduan. pulled-out the subject tricycle from Lacsamana. however. Parlade. In the said incident. Before a contract could be executed.
different from the crimes of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. with intent to gain. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof. The Revised Penal Code. in this instant case. 6539. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. (1998). or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. 3. 619. otherwise known as "An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping". it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing. or apoderamiento. as an element of the crime of carnapping. The anti-carnapping law is a special law. defines carnapping as the taking. In the instant case. or animus lucrandi. His intent to gain is presumed from his act of unlawfully taking the subject tricycle from its owner. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Romulo Takad. The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Book Two. 14th ed. .) Intent to gain. in their statements. took the subject tricycle and drove it away from the premises of Carlos Parlade with whom the subject tricycle was assigned by BDC. Unlawful taking. Witnesses. or by using force upon things. Such acts f the accused constitute the crime of carnapping. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself. even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. (Luis B.ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: Romulo Takad committed acts in violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. p. or by using force upon things. it is proven that these elements of carnapping were present. 2. or by using force upon things. 4. The elements of the crime of carnapping are: • • • • 1. saw accused. Reyes. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent. he must be held liable for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle. therefore. Republic Act No. is an internal act and hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the tricycle. is the taking of the vehicle without the consent of the owner.
2002). the accused. liable for damages for the injury suffered by Ms. subject of herein case.Positive identification of witnesses Witnesses. he failed to present witnesses who may corroborate his statement. and. their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. the court must be convinced that there was physical impossibility on the part of the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. 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. . was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. prevails over the defense of denial. ACCUSED INTERPOSED ALIBI AS DEFENSE In the instant case. Moreover. It is not enough that the he was somewhere else when the crime transpired. Bueno’s son. 141162-62. Quezon City. RELIEFS WHEREFORE. For it to prosper. No improper motive was imputed on these witnesses who positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the offense. but also because they can be easily fabricated. 2011. during the commission of the crime. sleeping. Said witnesses were moved by their desire to see that justice is to be done. They have no reason to perjure. therefore. It is a time-honored principle that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the witnesses’s positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for. not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable. accused denied the acts imputed against him and stated that he was at home. November 27. Such defense of alibi is generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution.. In People vs dela Cruz (GR No. Romulo Takad. july 11. positively identified the accused as the person who unlawfully took the tricycle. The accused in the instant case professed that the The accused failed to meet the requisites for alibi to be considered as a valid defense. In the present case. Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas. premises considered. the Court declared that categorical and consistent positive identification. it is prayed to this HONORABLE COURT. that judgement be rendered making Gloria Supermart Inc. Their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands. absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter.
A Counsel for the Plaintiff .Atty.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.