Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 12345-H
Violation of R.A. 6539
– versus – (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972)

ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.

x---------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Accused

THE ACCUSED, through counsel, respectfully submits this

memorandum to the Honorable Court and avers that:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ma. Teresa Lacsamana, a resident of 374 Villa St., Palatiw, Pasig

City, and the accused Romulo Takad are live-in partners. Sometime in
March 2007, Lacsamana obtained a loan of P80,000.00 from Bayan
Development Corporation (BDC), as evidenced by a Kasunduan. The
P80,000.00 was used to purchase a tricycle, registered to Lacsamana but
encumbered by reason of the loan, now subject of the present case.

After July 2007, Lacsamana failed to pay her dues. As a result, on

October 2, 2007 BDC pulled out the tricycle from her and later re-
assigned to Carlos Parlade.

On the early morning of November 21, 2007, at around 1:00 a.m.,

the tricycle, parked just outside of Carlos Parlade’s house at 84 West Rd.,
Maybunga, Pasig City, was taken and driven away by a man not
personally known to Parlade at the time of the taking. Mario Mankas, who
was in his neighbor’s house near the scene, witnessed the tricycle
speeding away with Parlade behind, giving chase.

Page 1 of 5
 On the same day, at 1:30 p.m., Parlade appeared at the police
station and gave his statement. He returned at 5:30 p.m., where Takad
alone was shown to Parlade and asked if he was the one who took the
tricycle. Parlade answered in the affirmative.

On the same day as well, at 4:00 p.m., Mario Mankas appeared in

the police station to give his sworn statement. Takad alone was shown to
him in the room; thereafter, in the same room, he gave his sworn
statement.

On November 22, 2007, an Information was filed charging Romulo

Takad of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972).

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I
Whether Romulo Takad was positively identified by witnesses Carlos
Parlade and Mario Mankas as the one who stole the tricycle

II
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt

ARGUMENTS

I
The witnesses for the prosecution, Carlos Parlade and Mario
Mankas, utterly failed to positively identify Romulo Tankad as the
one who stole the tricycle.

Jurisprudence explains the principle of positive identification of the

perpetrator of a crime and the factors that either bolster its credibility or
undermine it. In People v. Teehankee, Jr. the Supreme Court introduced
the totality of circumstances test in our jurisdiction with regard to the
credibility of an eyewitness’ identification of a suspect:

Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-

court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules
to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of
constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-
of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the
witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by

Page 2 of 5
 the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and
the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 1

In the present case, the testimonies of the witnesses, taken

together, are sorely wanting of merit to pass the first, third, fourth and
sixth tests.

To begin, Carlos Parlade testified that he saw the face of the suspect
during the act of taking the tricycle. On its face, it seems to be a positive
identification of the suspect. But Parlade did not even give a description
of the suspect’s face in his sworn statement, reasoning that the police did
not ask these details specifically. Such a fatal omission is inexcusable
especially coming from a witness who not only was injured by the loss of
a property possessed and enjoyed by him, but who also happens to be a
member of the barangay security force, and thus well aware of the
importance of getting a good description of a criminal suspect. During the
trial, he even said that he was not able to remember such facial details,
effectively obliterating any supposed merit from his previous statement
of having seen the face of the suspect. It can hardly be said that while he
had the opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, he also
had such a degree of attention as to be able to recall clearly the facial
features of the suspect, which he clearly failed to do.

Moreover, in Item 14 of his sworn statement, Parlade described the

build of the person whom he saw stole the tricycle, to wit: “Medyo
malapad ng konti ang katawan at medyo maiksi ang buhok.” Quite to the
contrary, the accused’s build is nowhere close to that description.
Standing at five feet, five and a half inches (5’5½”) and 120 pounds, his
body mass index (BMI) is a mere 19.7, barely 1.2 points above the
minimum of the “normal” range, and just shy of the “underweight” range.
One would be hard pressed to describe such a man as “medyo malapad
ang katawan.” Thus, this testimony of Parlade fails the third test.

To his own defense against the prosecution’s claim that it was quite
possible for the accused’s build to change during the time he was in
prison, the accused presented evidence of his build at the time he was
taken into custody, in the form of his mugshot photograph taken at the
police station before his inquest. Such clear evidence, produced no less
by the work of law enforcers in whose custody he was, trumps the bare
and erroneous allegation of the eyewitness.

For his part, the second eyewitness, Mario Mankas testified that he
was washing his hands in the house of his neighbor, at the faucet near the
gate when he saw the tricycle speeding away and Parlade giving chase
behind. Mankas admitted that because the tricycle was travelling at a
very fast speed, and that he was bowed down (“nakayuko”), he could
1 People v. Teehankee, 319 Phil. 128 (1995).

Page 3 of 5
hardly make out the face of the driver of the tricycle (“hindi ko gaanong
namukhaan”). By these admissions, Mankas' identification of the suspect
easily fails the first, second and fourth tests. He instead avers that the man
who stole the tricycle was “medyo maskulado,” corroborating the
testimony of Parlade and thus, equally failing to mirror the actual build
of the accused. Mankas also testified that the nape of the suspect was
longer than most other men’s. However, this description of the nape is
incongruous to that of the accused Takad’s nape, which is a mere two (2)
inches from the neckline of his T-shirt. Yet again, this testimony failed the
third test just like the testimony of Parlade with regard to the build of the
suspect.

That is not all. The credibility of Mankas’ testimony is highly

questionable in itself because someone pointed the accused to him before
he gave his statement to the police. The accused alone was shown to him,
without any police lineup of men who approximate the description of the
suspect. To make matters worse, the accused was even in the same room
as, and in plain view of Mankas while the latter was being asked by the
police to describe the suspect. Clearly, the manner of the identification
procedure was highly suggestive and thus the testimony fails the sixth
test. Confirmation bias attended this event so patently and strongly that
there is no other recourse but to consider the testimony of Mankas as
incredible and unworthy of belief.

II
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

The infirmities of the two eyewitness testimonies now fully

exposed, we now look back to at least consider the testimony of the first
witness for the prosecution, Zenny Aguirre. She alleged that the accused,
after the pull-out of the tricycle by BDC, uttered the words, “Huwag na
huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig,” and that the accused had a
reputation for dismantling motorcycles (“kahuyin”). Both these
allegations do not add a grain of merit to tip the scale in favor of the
prosecution. The former is an ambiguous utterance that can be construed
in myriad ways; the latter, plain and simple hearsay that the prosecution
did not even bother to qualify with valid evidence. Neither have an iota of
proof that the accused had, at the very least, the intent to gain, much less
that he had actually taken possession of the tricycle without the consent
of its owner. This is the final nail in the coffin for the prosecution’s flimsy
case.

Even a tiny sliver of doubt, if reasonable, is enough to warrant the

acquittal of an accused. But in this case, the doubt brought on by the gross
inconsistencies of the testimonies of Parlade and Mankas, and the

Page 4 of 5
unremarkable allegations of Aguirre is so confounding that to pronounce
the guilt of the accused would be an exercise in absurdity and injustice.
Having the burden of proof, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove
through clear and convincing evidence the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. This it failed to do. It is to serve justice, therefore, that
the innocence of the accused be upheld.

CONCLUSION

With the arguments presented above, the accused believes that the
testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, having failed the totality of
circumstances test, are not clear and convincing as to prove that the
accused was the one who stole the tricycle and thus, the prosecution
failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused respectfully prays

to the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in his favor by finding
the accused NOT GUILTY in view of the failure of the prosecution to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused likewise prays for such other relief as the Honorable Court
may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Pasig City, 25th day of February 2008.

Page 5 of 5