You are on page 1of 11

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City


- versus - Crim. Case No. 12345-H
Violation of R.A.
(Anti-Carnapping Act 2016)




The Plaintiff, respectfully submits this Memorandum to this

Honorable Court, as follows:

The Case

The prosecution charged Romulo Takad with the crime of

violation of R.A. 10883 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016) for taking a
motorcycle with sidecar (tricycle), belonging to Bayan Development
Corporation (BDC) which reassigned said tricycle to Carlos Parlade
when the original assignee, the accuseds live-in partner, Teresa
Lacsamana defaulted on her installment payments. Takad denied the
charge against him.

The Facts

In order that the court may be enlightened and guided in the

judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited below were the
material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:

In May 2007, Zenny Aguirre, account officer and representative

of BDC granted a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2 (Samahan) which
Teresa Lacsamana was part of. The Kasunduan embodied the terms
and conditions of the loan between BDC and the Samahan. The
group loan totaled Php 480, 000.00 and Lacsamana received
Php 80, 000.00 as her share.

Lacsamana executed a promissory note and chattel mortgage
and thereafter claimed a tricycle, with the accused Romulo Takad,
from BDC.

In July 2007, Lacsamana defaulted on her installment

payments which consigned the tricycle in the custody of the
Samahans treasurer, Ricardo Marasigan, on October 2, 2007. In the
meantime, Aguirre agreed to extend Lacsamanas payment deadline
to October 17, 2007. However, Lacsamana and Takad only produced
the amount of Php 14, 000.00 past the deadline, which Aguirre then
refused to accept.

The tricycle was reassigned to Carlos Parlade no later than

November 20, 2007. Unfortunately, said tricycle was stolen from his
residence at one oclock in the morning of November 21, 2007. He
and Mario Mankas witnessed Takad driving off with his tricycle.
Parlade then informed Aguirre of the carnapping that same day.

The police arrested Takad and brought him to the police station
on November 21, 2007.

Abstracts of the Testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses

As and by way of testimonial evidence, the prosecution

presented three (3) witnesses, as testified by:

1. Zenny Aguirre 33-year old, account officer of BDC, and lived

at 54 Helena St., Tanza Village, Marikina. She has been an employee
of BDC for 12 years, and handled the 30-months loan payable
account of Lacsamana.

Aguirre alleged that when Lacsamana defaulted on her

payments in July 2007, BDC pulled out the tricycle from her
residence on October 2, 2007, since the Kasunduan provided for
such, in the event of default in payments.

Aguirre further alleged that Lacsamana only provided the

payment on October 22, 2007 when the agreed deadline was
October 17, 2007. Aguirres boss then ordered her not to accept the
late payment, which led to Takads threat of Huwag na huwag kong
makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig. After which, the tricycle was
reassigned to Carlos Parlade.

Aguirre also narrated that Parlade called her at one oclock in

the morning of November 21, 2007 to inform her that his tricycle was
stolen from his residence.

2. Carlos Parlade 50-year old, married, construction worker,
and resided at 84 West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City. He was also a
member of the Maybunga Security Force.

Parlade narrated that on November 21, 2007 at one oclock in

the morning, he had just returned home. When he exited his house
again to chain-up his tricycle, newly assigned to him by BDC, saw a
person pushing his tricycle down the street. He shouted at the
person, Hoy, bat dala-dala mo iyang motor. The intruder turned at
the shout, kick-started the engine, and drove away. He then ran after
the tricycle to catch it up but was unsuccessful.

Parlade alleged that when the intruder turned at his shout, he

recognized Takad. He then informed Aguirre of the robbery and they
spent the early morning hours looking for the stolen tricycle. Parlade
reported the robbery at one-thirty in the afternoon of the same day,
and executed a sworn statement, as well. He returned to the police
station at five-thirty in the afternoon, to identify the arrested Takad.

3. Mario Mankas 19-year old, jobless neighbor of Parlade, and

lived at 66 West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City.

Mankas recounted that at two oclock in the morning of

November 21, 2007, he washed his hands by a neighbors front gate
after playing computer games, and saw Parlade running after a
tricycle. He alleged that he recognized Takad as the tricycle passed in
front of him. He then decided to chase after both Parlade and the
tricycle driver. At four oclock in the afternoon, Parlade accompanied
Mankas to the police station to give a sworn statement and identify

Abstracts of the Testimonies of the Defense Witnesses

The accuseds evidence on the other hand consisted mostly of

alibi and denials, and presented two (2) witnesses, as testified by:

1. Romulo Takad 43-year old, married, live-in partner of

Lacsamana, and resided at 374 Villa Street, Palatiw, Pasig City. He
drove the tricycle for Lacsamana.

Takad admitted that Lacsamana defaulted on her installment

payments and so, they brought the tricycle to Treasurer Marasigans
residence for custody.

Takad recounted further that Aguirre pulled out the tricycle from
Marasigan on October 18, 2007 when Lacsamana was unable to

provide payment to the agreed-upon extension of October 17. They
then went to BDCs offices to pay the arrears but Aguirre informed
them that the company would no longer accept the late payment.
Aguirre also revealed to them that due to the default, the company
inferred that they had no means to pay for further installments.

Takad contended that he pleaded with Aguirre that he hoped

not to see the said tricycle in Pasig as it would pain him and
Lacsamana. He also alleged that he was alone at home, sleeping, in
the early morning of November 21, 2007, and added that Lacsamana
was in Singapore, then. The police awakened him when they arrived
to arrest him.

2. Maria Teresa Lacsamana 33-year old, single, business-

woman, live-in partner to Takad, and resided at 374 Villa Street,
Palatiw, Pasig City.

Lacsamana admitted that she defaulted on her payments for

fifteen days. She further related that Aguirre pulled out the tricycle
and they both surrendered it to Treasurer Marasigans custody. She
also added that Aguirre agreed to extend the deadline for payment to
October 17, 2007, but disclosed that she was unable to meet it
because she had to mortgage her car first, for Php 100, 000.00. She
only produced the Php 14, 000.00 due, on October 18 which Aguirre
did not accept, and only declared that if she was given another
chance she might still be unable to pay the balance. She further
recalled that Takad, who accompanied her then, stated that he hoped
not to see the said tricycle in Pasig since they could not redeem it.

Lacsamana confirmed that she was in Singapore from

November 16 to December 14, 2007.

The Issue

The only issue in this case was whether Takad committed

carnapping, in violation of R.A. 10883, by taking the subject tricycle
from Parlades residence.


The testimonies and documentary exhibits of the Prosecution

and the witnesses positive identification and narration of events and
acts of the accused Romulo Takad, clearly demonstrated he
committed carnapping by taking Carlos Parlades tricycle without his




Takad, charged with the crime of carnapping denied the

allegation and his counsel hinged their argument on Lacsamanas
ownership of the subject tricycle and inferred that he therefore could
not have committed carnapping. Such reasoning failed, for the phrase
belonging to another meant that the property taken does not belong
to the offender. The person from whom the personal property is taken
need not be the owner. Possession of property is sufficient. (Luis B.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 18th ed., 2012, p. 657).
Parlades narration on the events of November 21, 2007 regarding
the subject tricycle that he needed to chain it down for the night
having been parked outside his residence, led to the conclusion that
he was in possession of the subject tricycle when Takad stole it.
Possessor of the property was deemed to be its owner for the
purposes of establishing carnapping and robbery, in general.

Republic Act No. 10883 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016

clearly applied in this case. Section 2 and 3 of the Act defined motor
vehicle and carnapping, respectively.

A motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by

any power other than muscular power using the
public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley
cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers,
bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and
cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles,
which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors,
trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having
any number of wheels, when propelled or intended
to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle,
shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no
power rating. (R.A. 10883, Section 2 (e)).

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain,

of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latters consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things. (R.A. 10883, Section 3).

Having applied the above definition of a motor vehicle, a tricycle

which was the subject of this case, certainly fell within its sphere.

Here, the elements of carnapping were as follows:

That there was an actual taking of the vehicle;

That the vehicle belonged to a person other than the offender
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; and
That the offender intended to gain from the taking of the
vehicle. (People v. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044, September 14,

The Prosecution witnesses testimonies revealed that all the

elements of carnapping were present during trial.

First, the tricycle was in Carlos Parlades possession having

been parked at his residence. Second, it has been sufficiently
established as stolen by Parlades eye-witness testimony of the
carnapping, corroborated by Mario Mankas participation, having
chased after Parlade and the tricycle. Third, the fact that Parlade
shouted at the carnapper and chased after him is indicative that the
tricycle was taken without his consent that there was unlawful
taking. In Lagat echoed from People v. Bustinera, unlawful taking
defined as the taking of a motor vehicle without the consent of the
owner is considered complete from the moment the offender gained
possession of the thing. (People v. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044,
September 14, 2011). Lastly, in general, intent to gain is presumed
from the unlawful taking of anothers personal property. It is an
internal act which could not be established by direct evidence, except
through the accuseds confession. Failing that, it should be deduced
from circumstances of the crime. (People v. Sia Teb Ban, G.R. No. L-
31695, November 26, 1929).

Such testimonies and narration of witnesses directed to the

normal conclusion that a reasonably prudent man would attain; that
Takad indeed committed acts that constituted the crime of
carnapping. Therefore, he must be held liable for violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 2016.




Takad relied heavily on his testimony of denials and alibi.

Defense counsel focused on his calm acceptance of BDCS refusal to

allow Lacsamana to pay her arrears, and his alibi of being asleep at
home on the day of the robbery.

The lame defense of denial was all that accused could offer
against the prosecution evidence. It was negative and self-serving
that required substantiation by clear and convincing evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility. (People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No.
213913, September 02, 2015). Based on Takads own testimony, he
was home alone on the day that subject tricycle was stolen. He
admitted that Lacsamana was in Singapore, then. Lacsamana
confirmed it, saying she was on a business trip in Singapore from
November 16 to December 14, 2007. An excerpt from Lacsamanas
testimony, to wit:

Q. Where were you in the morning of November 21,

A. I was in Singapore, sir.

Q. When did you leave for Singapore?

A. November 16, sir.

Q. And, when did you come back to the Philippines?

A. December 14, sir.

ATTY CRUZ: That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

COURT: Cross?

PROSEC. DE LEON: When did you leave for

Singapore, Madam Witness?

A. November 16, sir.

Q. What year, Madam Witness?

A. 2007, sir.

Q. In other words, on November 21, 2007 you did

not have personal knowledge whatsoever of what
transpired since you were in Singapore?

A. Yes, sir, I did not have any knowledge of it.

With both their testimonies, they unwittingly demolished

Takads only defense.

In addition, for a defense of alibi to prosper, it was not enough

that he prove that he was somewhere else when the crime occurred,
but he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime. (People v. Realin, G.R.
No. 126051, January 21, 1999). Which cannot be availed, records of
the case would show that it was not impossible for Takad to have
been at the scene of the crime and then back to his house. There
was available twenty-four hour public transportation, plus there was
no traffic in the early hours of the morning. Takad could easily have
been and back to his house to set up his alibi. Below is the pertinent
extract of Takads cross-examination:

PROSEC. DE LEON: Mr. Witness, you mentioned
that you reside at 374 Villa Street, Palatiw, Pasig City.
How far is this from West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City?

A. It is quite far, sir.

Q. Give us an estimate of the distance?

A. From Pasig Kapitolyo to Edsa Shrine in Ortigas.

Q. Do you reckon by road distance, using the

regular route?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there available public transportation running

that route on a 24-hour basis?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In other words, if you want to go to Maybunga

Pasig you can go there anytime?

A. Yes, sir.

Testimony alone would have sufficed for purposes of
identification, but prosecution also provided corroborating evidence.
Positive identification was further proof of accuseds presence at the
crime scene when the carnapping was committed. (Diamante v.
People, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009). During the hearing,
Parlade gave eyewitness testimony of what transpired the early
morning of November 21, 2007. That he saw Takad driving-off with
his tricycle. Mankas corroborated this with his own eyewitness
account of running after Parlade and the subject tricycle. Added to
that were their sworn statements and identification of Takad as the
carnapper at the police station.

Hence, the mere denial and unsubstantiated alibi of Takad

could not overcome Parlade and Mankas eyewitness testimonies
and positive identification of Takad taking the subject tricycle on
November 21, 2007.




Defense counsel highlighted instances of irregularities in details

of prosecutions witnesses testimonies to cast doubt on its reliability.

However, it was a settled rule that discrepancies in the

testimony of witnesses did not affect the credibility of the said
witnesses. Such inconsistencies even enhanced the credibility of the
witnesses, for they removed any suspicion that their testimonies were
contrived or rehearsed. The true test was whether their testimonies
agreed on the essential facts and substantially corroborated a
consistent and coherent whole. (People v. Realin, G.R. No. 126051,
January 21, 1999). Records of the case revealed that the prosecution
testimonies: where Parlade saw Takad driving his tricycle away,
shouted at him, and chased after; and Mankas having seen Takad as
the driver, saw Parlade chasing a tricycle, and chased after as well,
led to a normal sequence of actions and reactions, as a whole and
consistent with the carnapping that took place. Both Parlade and
Mankas testimonies and affidavits served to corroborate each

Also, whenever there was inconsistency between the affidavit

and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commanded
greater weight. (People v. Cabrillas, G.R. No. 175980, February 15,

In fact, the efforts of the defense counsel during cross-
examination to cast doubt only succeeded in strengthening
prosecution witness testimony. (People v. Viente, G.R. No. 103299,
August 17, 1993). It only highlighted the defense desperation to
show Takad as a hapless victim and try to damage the prosecutions
airtight case.

As it is, the discrepancies pointed out in the testimony of the

eyewitnesses by the defense counsel were not material enough to
overturn the positive identification of Takad.

In People v. Gonzales and reiterated in People v. Jalbonian, the

Supreme Court has ruled that even one witness testimony was
sufficient, as long as it was credible and positive, to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. (People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281,
July 01, 2013). The Prosecution presented three (3) credible
witnesses who were subjected to cross-examination questions by the
defense counsels of the accused and all their testimonies proved that
Takad took the subject tricycle without Parlades consent.




As is the jurisprudence on civil indemnity in the crime of

carnapping, Bayan Development Corporation or Carlos Parlade,
whichever was the appropriate recipient, should be entitled to
damages in the corresponding sum representing the total installment
payments made on the subject tricycle. (People v. Aquino, G.R. No.
201092, January 15, 2014).

Closing Statement

In the early morning of November 21, 2007, the accused Takad

took Parlades tricycle from his residence without his consent. Takad
was then charged for carnapping. The prosecution humbly stated and
took the position that it has presented competent witnesses, clear,
convincing and sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Takad was guilty of committing the crime charged and he
miserably failed to adduce any evidence that could have raised doubt
as to his guilt of the offense charged. The Supreme Court has held
that in the crime of carnapping it was only fair that victims be
indemnified (People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014)
since tricycles, as in the case, must usually be utilized in livelihood
and paid for in hard-earned money.


WHEREFORE, Prosecution respectfully prays that a Decision

be rendered finding the Accused Romulo Takad guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of CARNAPPING penalized under
Republic Act No. 10883 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, and be
adjudged civilly liable to indemnify his victims.

Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise

prayed for.

[Explanation: A copy of this memorandum has been served on

the adverse party by registered mail in view of the distance and the
absence of a messenger who could make a personal service.]

Pasig City for Pasig City, 13 March 2008

Public Prosecutor
Prosecutors Office
Pasig City
Atty. Roll No. 00000
IBP 111111 01-01-01
PTR 0000000 02-02-02
MCLE Compliance III-000

Copy furnished:

Atty. Andres C. Ranjo

Approving Prosecutor
Prosecutors Office
Pasig City

Midterm Paper
February 18, 2017
Trial Memorandum for Prosecution
Student #: 16-07333
First year Set B