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.

through Aguirre. she was unable to pay the amount on the date agreed upon. BDC. barely four (4) months from the constitution of the Kasunduan.” Subsequently. 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. however.the latter being in default in the payment of her loan. went to Aguirre and pleaded that they be allowed to redeem the tricycle but Aguirre. defaulted in her loan. together with her live-in partner. 2003 near the house of Parlade. So that on November 20. and another witness. Parlade notified Aguirre that the tricycle was stolen at 1:00 in the morning of November 21.00 which is partitioned among its six (6) members. was then extended the amount of EIGHTY-THOUSAND PESOS and as agreed upon. identified the accused as the perpetrator. 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. During investigation. a Kasuduan was entered into by BDC and Samahan on March 2003. Before a contract could be executed. “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig. Under the said Kasunduan. as instructed by her superior.000. gave Lacsamana a chance to redeem the tricycle and set a period within which the latter must settle her obligation. who was with Lacsamana at that time. Ma. ISSUE/S: WHETHER OR NOT ROMULO TAKAD COMMITTED THE CRIME OF CARNAPPING. Lacsamana. In pursuant to the Kasunduan. In the said incident. a member of said Samahan. however. 2003. the subject tricycle was given to a new assignee. Romulo Takad. the tricycle was seized from the treasurer of the Samahan. Teresa Lacsamana. Zennie Aguirre. Takad. denied their plea. the accounts officer of BDC. So that five days thereafter. 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. uttered. Both alleged that they saw Takad driving the tricycle away from Parlade’s residence. Relative to this. pulled-out the subject tricycle from Lacsamana. Lacsamana. . She had her last payment on July 2003. Mario Mankas. Carlos Parlade. Parlade.

is an internal act and hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the tricycle. p. in this instant case. he must be held liable for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. took the subject tricycle and drove it away from the premises of Carlos Parlade with whom the subject tricycle was assigned by BDC. defines carnapping as the taking. The Revised Penal Code. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle. 14th ed. 6539. or by using force upon things. 619. Witnesses. His intent to gain is presumed from his act of unlawfully taking the subject tricycle from its owner. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof. is the taking of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. as an element of the crime of carnapping. Republic Act No. 3. (Luis B. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent. it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. therefore. or by using force upon things. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Romulo Takad. or by using force upon things. it is proven that these elements of carnapping were present. otherwise known as "An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping". even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. different from the crimes of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. (1998). Unlawful taking. or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. with intent to gain. The anti-carnapping law is a special law.ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: Romulo Takad committed acts in violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself. 2.) Intent to gain. or animus lucrandi. or apoderamiento. 4. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. In the instant case. The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. saw accused. Reyes. Book Two. Such acts f the accused constitute the crime of carnapping. in their statements. . The elements of the crime of carnapping are:[3] • • • • 1.

It is not enough that the he was somewhere else when the crime transpired. during the commission of the crime. Moreover. Said witnesses were moved by their desire to see that justice is to be done. and. 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. ACCUSED INTERPOSED ALIBI AS DEFENSE In the instant case. Their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands. subject of herein case. not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable. 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. positively identified the accused as the person who unlawfully took the tricycle. sleeping. Romulo Takad. july 11. 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. No improper motive was imputed on these witnesses who positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the offense. the Court declared that categorical and consistent positive identification. For it to prosper. 141162-62. the accused. he failed to present witnesses who may corroborate his statement. 2002). accused denied the acts imputed against him and stated that he was at home. their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. In the present case. 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. RELIEFS . Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas. absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. They have no reason to perjure. but also because they can be easily fabricated. In People vs dela Cruz (GR No. prevails over the defense of denial.Positive identification of witnesses Witnesses. was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. Such defense of alibi is generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution. therefore.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful