You are on page 1of 2

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACCUSED 1. The accused has committed the act of carnapping the motorcycle by: a.

Taking the motorcycle which belongs to Lacsama alone. Although they are living in together, the said vehicle is rightfully owned by her. Lacsama acquired the motorcycle by entering into a contract, as member of Samhan (I forgot the whole name) with the BGC to finance it and she has had it registered with the LTO under her name alone. Nowhere in the facts can the accused be said to be an owner of the said vehicle. b. Taking the motorcycle without the consent of Lacsamana or the BGC, as the assignee (tama ba ang term?-since in case of default, BGC will foreclosed the same). Lacsamana was negotiating with BGC have it back to her possession by having the past due amount paid. It is Lacsamas intention to have it back only through legal means (i.e. settlement of arrears subject to BGCs conforminity). c. The taking is done with intent to gain. In People vs. Calabroso, G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000, intent to gain is presumed when one takes a property

belonging to another against his will.

2. Accused was positively identified by Mark (something) and (the guy whom the tricycle was subsequently assigned) that he took the tricycle. Accused contents that the identification made by the witnesses was not positive, clear and convincing. Petitioners weak denial, especially when uncorroborated, cannot overcome the positive identification of them by the prosecution witnesses. As between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence and weight (Sayoc vs People, G.R. No. 157723, April 30, 2009). In People vs Gallarde, GR. No. 133025, February 17, 2000, the Supreme Court held that xxx Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A witness may identity a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the second type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. If the actual eyewitnesses are the only ones allowed to possibly positively identify a suspect or accused to the exclusion of others, then nobody can ever be convicted unless there is an eyewitness, because it is basic and elementary that there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified. Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom

a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.25 If resort to circumstantial evidence would not be allowed to prove identity of the accused on the absence of direct evidence, then felons would go free and the community would be denied proper protection.