Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No. 12345-H
Violation of R.A. 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act)
ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused,
x-------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Plaintiff, respectfully submits this Memorandum to this Honorable Court, as follows:

THE CASE

The prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Romulo Takad with
the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act. 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 (BDC), represented by Zenny Aguirre. Said tricycle was reassigned to
Carlos Parlade when the original assignee, the accused’s live-in partner Teresa Lacsamana
defaulted on her installment payments. Takad denied the charge against him.

THE FACTS

Zenny Aguirre, account officer and representative of Bayan Development Corporation

(BDC), granted a group loan to Sakbayan members and the members of Tricycle Operators and
Drivers Associations or TODA. Relative to this, a Kasunduan was entered into by BDC and
samahan. Under the said Kasunduan, the members are to receive Eighty Thousand Pesos
(P80,000.00) each, 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. Ma. Teresa
Lacsamana, live-in partner of the accused and member of said samahan, was then extended the
amount of eighty thousand pesos and as agreed upon, she executed a promissory note and a
chattel mortgage and brought a tricycle which is now the subject of the case.
However, she defaulted in her loan which consigned the tricycle in the custody of the
samahan’s treasurer, Ricardo Marasigan. She had her last payment on July 2007. Aguirre and
Lacsamana had an agreement to extend the deadline of payment of the due amount of
P14,000.00 on October 18, 2007. However, she was unable to pay the amount on the date agreed
upon. Lacsamana, together with the accused, to Aguirre and pleaded that they may be allowed
to redeem the tricycle but Aguirre, as instructed by her boss, denied their plea.

Subsequently, the tricycle was seized from Marasigan and was reassigned to Carlos
Parlade on November 20. Before a contract could be executed, Parlade notified Aguirre that the
tricycle was stolen at around 1 o’clock in the morning of November 21 near the house of Parlade.
During investigation, Parlade and another witness, Mario Mankas, identified the accused as the
perpetrator. Both alleged that they saw the accused driving the tricycle away from Parlade’s
residence.

The police arrested Takad and was brought to the police station that same day.

ABSTRACT OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses as testified by:

1. ZENNY G. AUIRRE, 33 years old, account officer of DBC for 12 years, and residing at
54 Helena St., Tanza Village, Marikina.

Aguirre alleged that when Lacsamana defaulted on her payments, BDC pulled out
the tricycle from her residence, as provided in the Kasunduan.

She further alleged that Lacsamana and the accused went to their office only
on Oct. 22 when the agreed deadline was Oct. 18. As per ordered by her boss, she refused
to accept their payment which led to Takad’s statement of “Huwas na huwag kong
makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig”.

She also narrated that Parlade called her on Nov. 21 to inform her that at one
o’clock in the morning of the same day, the tricycle was stolen from his residence.

2. CARLOS PARLADE, 50 years old, married, construction worker and member of the
Maybunga Security Force, presently residing at #84 West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City.

Parlade narrated that at one o’clock in the morning, after he returned home, he
went out to chain up his tricycle, when he saw someone pushing his tricycle down the
street. He shouted “hoy, ba’t dala-dala mo iyang motor?”. The intruder turned his face
towards him, kick-started the engine, and drove away. He then run after the tricycle but
was unsuccessful. However, he was able to recognize Takad. He then informed Aguirre of
the robbery and they spent hours looking for the stolen vehicle. At 1:30 in the afternoon,
he reported the said event and executed a sworn statement. He returned to the police
station at 5:30 to identify the arrested Takad.

3. MARIO MANKAS, 19 years old, jobless, neighbor of Parlade, residing at 66 West

Road, Maybunga, Pasig City.

He narrated that after he was done playing computer, he washed his hands by a
neighbor’s front gate and saw Parlade running after a tricycle. As the tricycle passed by
him, he was able to recognize Takad. He decided to chase after Parlade and Takad. In the
afternoon, he was accompanied by Parlade to the police station to give his sworn
statement.

ABSTRACT OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES

1. ROMULO TAKAD, 43 years old, live-in partner of Lacsamana, residing at 374 Villa
St., Palatiw, Pasig City.

According to him, he and Lacsamana were the ones who brought the tricycle to
the residence of Marasigan when they defaulted their loan. He further said that Aguirre
pulled out the tricycle from Marasigan on Oct. 18 when Lacsamana was unable to pay on
 the agreed upon date of payment. Since they were late, Aguirre no longer accepted their
payment. He pleaded with Aguirre that he hoped not to see the tricycle in Pasig for it will
hurt him and his live-in partner.

He also alleged that during the time the tricycle was carnapped, he was home
alone, sleeping was awakened when the police arrested him in the morning. He also
added that Lacsamana was in Singapore that time.

2. MA. TERESA LACSAMANA, 33 years old, business woman, live-in parter of Takad.

She admitted that she was not able to pay for fifteen (15) days and that they
surrendered the tricycle to Marasigan;s custody. She added that Aguirre agreed to extend
the deadline for payment but she was not able to pay on time for she had to mortgage
her car first for P100,000.00. Aguirre told her that if she was given another chance, she
might probably not be able to pay its balance. She further said that when Takad
accompanied her, he said the he hoped he will not be able to see the said tricycle in Pasig.

She confirmed that she was in Singapore from Nov. 16 to Dec. 14 of the same year.

THE ISSUE

Whether or not Romulo Takad committed the crime of carnapping in violation of R.A. no.
6539 by taking the tricycle of Parlade.

ARGUMENTS

I.

TAKAD’S DENIALS AND ALIBI FAILED OVER POSITIVE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION

Takad relied heavily only on his testimony of denial and alibi that he was at home, alone,
sleeping when the incident took place. It was the sole evidence presented against the
prosecution. It was negative and self-serving that required substantiation by clear and convincing
evidence of non- culpability to merit credibility.

For a defense of alibi to prosper, it was not enough that he proved that he was
somewhere else when the crime took place, but he must also demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. In the case at bar, it was not impossible
for the accused to be at the scene of the crime for there was a twenty-four-hour availability of
public transportation, plus there was no traffic in the early hours of the morning. Takad could
easily have been back to his house.

Testimony alone would have sufficed the for purposes of identification, but the
prosecution was able to provide eyewitnesses in the person of Parlade and Mankas to prove the
presence of the accused in the scene of the crime. Added to that were there sworn statements
identifying Takad as the carnapper.

Hence, the mere denial and alibi of Takad cannot overcome the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses and the positive identification of Takad, taking the tricycle.
 In addition, he admitted that Lacsamana was in Singapore then and Lacsamana confirmed
the same by saying that she on a business trip in Singapore from Novemner 16 to December 14,
2007.

With both of their testimonies, they abolished Takad’s only defense.

II.

TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSESS

Although the defense counsel raised instances of irregularities in the details of the
witnesses’ testimonies, such discrepancies did not affect the credibility of the witnesses. It only
shows that those testimonies were not rehearsed. As whole, the testimonies of the witnesses
are consistent such as the recognition of Parlade and Mankas of Takad as well as the actual taking
of the subject tricycle.
The prosecution was able to present more than one credible witness who were cross-
examined by the counsel of the defense and were able to prove that Takad was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

III.

TAKAD COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF R.A. NO. 6539 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ANTI-

CARNAPPING ACT

Takad was charged of the crime of carnapping the tricycle possessed by Parlade. Although
Lacsamana was the one who bought the tricycle and was the original owner of such, since there
was a Kasunduan between the members and BDC that in the event one defaulted in the
payments, the vehicles purchased shall be pulled out by BDC. In the case at bar, Lacsamana
admitted that she defaulted in her loan and so, her tricycle was pulled out and was reassigned to
Parlade. Because of this, the tricycle is now in his possession.

The event took place near the residence of Parlade where the tricycle was situated. It was
proven, as witnessed by Parlade himself that when he was about to chain down the tricycle,
someone pushed down the said vehicle. It was clear that the accused took the vehicle without
the knowledge and consent of the Parlade, the possessor. When he shouted, the accused looked
towards him before he kick-started the vehicle and drove away. Parlade was able to recognize
Takad. Mankas in the same manner saw Takad driving the tricycle while he was washing his
hands.

Therefore, Takad was guilty of the crime of carnapping.

CLOSING STATEMENT

On November 21, 2007, one o’clock in the morning, Romulo Takad, accused, was charged
with carnapping for taking Parlade’s tricycle from his residence without his consent. The
prosecution was able to present competent witnesses and sufficient and convincing evidences to
prove that Takad was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him. On the
other hand, Takad was not able to prove his innocence for the only defense that he presented
was his alibi that he was sleeping alone in his house that time.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, prosecution respectfully prays that a decision be rendered finding the

accused Romulo Takad guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Carnapping in violation
of R.A no. 6539 and be adjudged civilly liable to indemnify his victims.

Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.

By:

MARIA ZAIRAH M. ANTONIO

1E-C