You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Pasig City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, -vesus-

Crim. Case No. 12345-H Violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act)

ROMULO TAKAD, Accused. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DEFENDANT`S MEMORANDUM Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case: The Case The prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act) by alledging that 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 Aguirre, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. Romulo Takad, accused, denied this charge on his testimonies. The accused opted not to avail of his right to a preliminary investigation and not having executed a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The Facts On March 2003, a KASUNDUAN was made between BAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SCCPPTODA 2 (SAMAHAN). Pursuant to the Kasunduan, a loan to be paid in regular installments amounting to P80,000.00 was extended to Ma. Teresa Lacsamana on May 2003 and such must be used to buy a tricyle which the former did and was actually granted the Certificate of Registration of a tricycle in her name. Lacsamana defaulted and her last payment as testified by Zenny Aguirre, the account officer of the BDC, was on July 2003. As stipulated and agreed upon by the parties in the Kasunduan, BDC pulled out the tricycle on October 2, 2003 due to default in payment by Lacsamana and was then given under the custody of the treasurer of the SAMAHAN, Ricardo Marasigan for management. Lacsamana, together with her live-in partner Romulo Takad, pleaded with Aguirre of BDC to pay the balance in order to redeem the tricycle and they were given a due date of October 17, 2003. However, the two weren`t able to appear on the agreed date, and as a result, BDC got the tricycle from Marasigan to permanently repossess the same on October 18, 2003. In Aguirre`s testimony she alledged that Lacsamana and Takad pleaded on October 22 of the same year to once again redeem the subject tricycle but the former refused as instructed by her boss. It was on the said date that Takad has spoken the statement Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.

According to Aguirre, the subject tricycle remained in the possession of BDC until it was given to the new assignee in the name of Carlos Parlade on Novemeber 20, 2003. The following day, at 1:00 in the morning, the said tricycle was stolen near the house of Parlade as alledged by him and the other witnesses Aguirre who was then communicated into by the former after the incident, and Mario Mankas who alledged that he actually saw the incident. Romulo Takad was pointed out the accused common to all three witnesses. Parlade and Mankas claimed recognition of Takad as the one who drove the tricycle away from the place of the said carnapping while Aguirre claimed suspicion because of the statement Takad has spoken on October 22, 2003 saying Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig when the former refused the redemption of the tricycle. The Issue The underlying issue in this case is whether or not Romulo Takad stole the subject tricycle thereby commiting the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act). Arguments I. THE STATEMENT IMPUTED BY TAKAD TO AGUIRRE HAS NO SHOWING THAT HE DID SO MALICIOUSLY AND IN BAD FAITH. The statement spoken by Takad Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig when they were refused of the chance to redeem the tricycle when they already had the means, appeared to be ambiguous. He did not actually say Kung makikita ko yang tricycle na `yan sa Pasig, nanakawin ko `yang tricycle na `yan. 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 amin. She was not even present at the carnapping incident and merely relied on the communication to her by Parlade in the morning. With the foregoing, Aguirre could not solely base the accusation by mere suppositions and presumptions in order to incriminate Takad.



First. Zenny, on her testimony, stated that she knew of the incident when Parlade told her about it at 7:00 in the morning while Parlade alledged that after he ran to chase the tricycle which was then driven by the carnapper and he failed to catch up with it, he and Zenny looked for the tricycle the whole night. Second. The tricycle was stolen in the early morning of November 21, and Parlade gave his statement to the police in the afternoon of the same day as supported by his affidavit which was timed 1:30pm. Third. Parlade said he was 5 meters away and so somewhat near from the tricycle when it was stolen which was against his sworn statement wherein he stated medyo malayo. And when he shouted, the carnapper looked back but suddenly started the motor. From that Parlade said he recognized the carnapper whose purpose was to flee and so merely glanced back. This was incoherent with his testimony in the witness stand that the man looked backed at him in the terms medyo matagal po.

Fourth. Parlade told Zenny the incident at 7:00 in the morning in which the latter has assumed it was Takad who took the tricycle. He went back to the police station on November 21, 2003 same day of the incident at 5:30 in the afternoon because Takad had been arrested and he had to identify him. They led him into a room and the investigator pointed out Takad to Parlade and asked if he was the one who took the tricycle. In other words, he was not shown the accused Takad in a police line-up with other persons of the same built so he could pick him out as the tricycle thief. Fifth. Mario Mankas, another eyewitness, said that he saw the incident 2:00 in the morning which was apart from Parlade`s story which is 1:00 am. Both of them alledged that the place was well lighted. They said they recognized the carnapper, according to Parlade by the glance back to him, and according to Mankas by the movement of the carnapper`s body which in his testimony in the witness stand he supposed and agreed that the carnapper was driving still. They both agreed that the driver was running very fast and Mankas said he was 9 to 10 meters away from the moving tricycle and he only had a brief glance of the driver. Both of them testified that the driver was malapad, but when Takad was asked to stand in Court he appeared medium built and it was earlier testified by Parlade that accused had the same appearance during the taking of the tricycle as when he was Court. Sixth. When another eyewitness Mankas was asked who brought him to the station, he said it was Kuya Carlos (Parlade) and that he told him he was to look at the person who stole the tricycle. The police had not placed the accused in a line of several men who were more or less of the same built as he was and when he entered the room someone pointed the accused Takad to him. He already had a good look at Takad and when he was asked to describe the physical built of the person who stole the tricycle, Takad was in the room with him. At the witness stand when asked that since he was looking at him in that room as the foregoing, he was able to say that Takad was medium built, apart from what he said earlier statement that the driver was medyo maskulado. Takad was actually 5`5 inches in height and 120 lbs in weight which Takad said he probably weighed less when the incident happened and he had an evidence of his built by his picture that was taken at Pariancillo after the police arrested him.



The irregularity and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not establish the guilt of the accused. The accused alleged he was sleeping in his house when the carnapping took place and this was supported by the fact that he was awakened by the police when they arrested him. The alibi assumes important when the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused. With the foregoing, it cannot be inferred that herein accused Romulo Takad is guilty of the crime charged. The quantum of evidence in a criminal proceeding is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless this has been established, the accused cannot be charged of the crime imposed upon him. The decision should not rely on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.