Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
BRANCH 161
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim. Case No. R-PSG-21-00542-

CR

-versus- For: Carnapping (under R.A.

10883)

BRIAN HERNANDEZ
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
(FOR THE ACCUSED)

Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the

immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's
case must rise on its own merits, not merely on relative strength as against
that of the defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden,
acquittal must follow as a matter of course.1

This case is for violation of Republic Act No. 10883, otherwise known
as the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, Criminal Case No. R-PSG-21-
00542, against accused Brian Hernandez also known as Boyong Hernandez,
docketed in Branch 161, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

Accused Brian Hernandez was charged with Carnapping under the

following information:

“On or about 03 January 2020, in Pasig City, and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with
intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
1
Capistrano Daayata et. vs People of the Phils, G. R. No. 205745, March 8, 2017

Page 1 of 9 / pao-mgtc
 feloniously take, steal and drive away one (1) unit Yamaha Mio
Sporty 40C9 Motorcycle with MV File Number 1303-
00000655287, Engine No. E21TE-0014006 and Chassis No.
PA0SEF210J0014082 belonging to complainant Kirsten Carol
Gula y Buenaobra but registered in the name of Roberto
Bulatao Gula, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant
and/or the registered owner, Roberto Bulatao Gula.

Contrary to law.”

When arraigned, accused Hernandez pleaded Not Guilty. Trial on the

merits ensued.

The prosecution alleged that the subject motorcycle, a Yamaha Mio

Sporty, is registered under the name of Roberto Gula (“Roberto”). He bought
the vehicle for PhP 68,000 and gave it to complainant as a gift. Complainant
Kirsten Carol Gula (“Kirsten”) recounted that at around 5:3o in the
afternoon of January 3, 2020, she went to a house along Dr. Pilapil Street
corner Afable Street, Barangay Sagad, Pasig City using her motorcycle.
Kirsten was also with her mother and nephew Dustin Bautista who were also
on board another motorcycle. Kirsten and her mother parked the two
motorcycles across the street and went inside the house of magtatawas to
have sick Dustin treated. Thirty minutes later, they finished and went back
to the spot where they parked the vehicles. Kirsten was shocked when she
discovered that her motorcycle was missing.

Kirsten hurriedly went to barangay hall of Barangay Sagad to report

the incident and to check the CCTV covering the said area. They saw on the
footage that at 5:57 in the afternoon, a male person who was wearing a cap
furtively went near the motorcycle. He sat on it for a while and then he
managed to start it and drive away going to Meralco Avenue.

Subsequently, Kirsten, together with his uncle Roberto, went to the

Anti-Carnapping Unit (ANCAR) of the Pasig City Police to report the
carnapping incident. Police Corporal Simoun Patrick Balitao of the ANCAR
took their sworn statements.

A follow-up operation ensued and led to the discovery that accused

pawned the subject motorcycle to witness Carolina B. Flores (“Carolina”) for
Nine Thousand Pesos (PhP69,00). A handwritten agreement between them
and allegedly signed by accused was submitted as evidence. However, said
witness did not testify in court. On the other hand, the alleged CCTV was
also not submitted as evidence of the prosecution.

Page 2 of 9 / pao-mgtc
 The defense did not present any evidence.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the accused is

guilty of violation of the Republic Act No. 10883 otherwise known as
the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”.

Records show that complainant had no personal knowledge that it

was the accused who stole the motorcycle. In fact, she admitted during the
direct examination that a male person boarded her motorcycle, but the
alleged CCTV footage was not clear. Thus, the appearance and exact identity
of the person who stole the motorcycle cannot be ascertained just by
looking at the said footage, viz:

xxx

Q: Ms. Witness, unang tanong, tama ho ba na hindi mo nakita ang aktwal na

nakita iyong mismong pagkuha ng motor sa labas nginyong
pinag[papa]tawasan, tama po?

A: Yes po.

Q: Sabi ninyo ho kanina pumunta po kayo ng barangay para makita iyong

CCTV na may cover sa lugar na pinag-parkingan ninyo, tama ho?

A: Yes po.

Q: Tapos doon sa CCTV may nakita ho kayo doon na isang lalaki na tumabi ho
sa motor ninyo?

A: Yes po.

Q: Doon po sa CCTV na sinasabi ninyo, kita ho ba, klaro ba iyong mukha ng

sinasabi ninyong lalaki na tumabi sa motor niyo?

A: Medyo may pagka-blurred po kasi iyong kuha ng CCTV, ma’am.

Q: So hindi ho gaanong malinaw, tama ho ba?

A: Yes po.2
xxx

In fact, even the barangay personnel was not able to identify the
person from the CCTV. Complainant further narrated that she did not

2
TSN, February 16, 2022, pp. 15

Page 3 of 9 / pao-mgtc
personally know the accused and only an unidentified outsider or “taga-
labas” told her that it was him, but both the CCTV footage, as well as the
said person who identified the culprit on the CCTV were also not presented
in court, viz:

xxx

Q: So ibig sabihin ho wala hong pagkakataon na personal ninyong nakaharap

itong si Brian Hernandez, na nakita niyo ang mukha niya, tama po?

A: Yes po.

Q: Hindi niyo naman po personal na kilala ito, tama po ba?

A: Yes po.

Q: At sinasabi ninyo na nalaman ninyo na lang po sa barangay at

nakapagtanong-tanong kayo na ang sinasabi nila, itong tao na nasa CCTV ay
nagngangalang Brian Hernandez, tama po ba?

A: Yes po.

Q: Noong unang pagkakataon po, nasabi na ho ba noong oras na iyon noong

vinuview ninyo ang CCTV, nasabi na po ba agad ng barangay na iyong taong
nakita ninyo na tumabi sa motor ninyo ay si Brian Hernandez o hindi pa po?

A: Hindi pa po.

Q: So, later on na lang po sinabi sa inyo?

A: Yes po maam.

Q: Matutukoy ninyo po ba kung barangay po iyong nakapagsabi sa inyo o ibang

tao po?

A: Sa labas po iyon, ma’am, mga taga labas po.

Q: Mga taga-labas. Pero hindo niyo po sigurado kung sila ay taga barangay o
taga-doon lang sa area?

A: Yes po ma’am. 3

xxx

Thus, the claim of the complainant that she heard from an

unidentified source that the person on the footage is Brian Hernandez is
hearsay and cannot be given weight considering that the source person did

3
TSN, February 16, 2022, pp. 16-17

Page 4 of 9 / pao-mgtc
not also testify in court. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Anecito
Estibal G.R. No. 208749, November 16, 2014, the Supreme Court declared:

“The hearsay rule puts in issue the trustworthiness and

reliability of hearsay evidence, since the statement testified to was
not given under oath or solemn affirmation, and more
compellingly, the declarant was not subjected to cross examination
by the opposing party to test his perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness, on whose reliability the entire worth of the out-of-
court statement depends. It is an immemorial rule that a
witness can testify only as to his own personal perception or
knowledge of the actual facts or events. His testimony cannot
be proof as to the truth of what he learned or heard from
others.”

Thus, the declaration of the complainant of what she heard from

other people does not have a probative value and insufficient to overcome
accused’s right of presumption of innocence.

II

Apart from the testimonies of Kirsten and Roberto who both have no
personal knowledge of the crime, the prosecution failed to present other
circumstantial evidence to prove that it was indeed Brian Hernandez who
stole the vehicle.

First, the alleged CCTV footage was not presented in court and
authenticated by the competent person. There is no way to verify the
content of that video footage and authenticate its source. Therefore, the
basis for the allegation of the complainant is hearsay and doubtful to convict
the accused of this crime.

Second, it must be noted that the prosecution formally offered the

sworn statement of witness Caroline Flores (“Caroline”) who did not testify
in court. The defense objected to the offer for being hearsay and lack of
probative value. It is a basic principle that any oral or documentary evidence
is hearsay by nature if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some other person who
was never presented on the witness stand, because it is the opportunity to
cross-examine which negates the claim that the matters testified to by a
witness are hearsay.4

4
People vs Marlon Dela Cruz G.R. No.174658 Feb.24, 2009

Page 5 of 9 / pao-mgtc
 Third, the handwritten agreement5 purportedly executed and signed
by accused and Caroline was not authenticated and cannot be used against
him. Moreover, according to the complainant, accused pawned the
motorcycle to Caroline. In the statement of Caroline however, she claimed
that it was a certain “Alex” who pawned to her the vehicle. The failure to
authenticate the document casts doubts on the identity of the person who
pawned the motorcycle. There was also no chance for the defense to
properly confront and cross-examine on the document.

Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides:

Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private

document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or

handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that

which it is claimed to be.

Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be

authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom
its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it
executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or
the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed
execution thereof.6 This is not the case here. The complainant never saw the
execution of the document nor has personal knowledge of the signatures in
the document. Therefore, there is no competent evidence to actually prove
accused’s criminal liability.

Overall, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and
there is doubt as to whether it is really Brian Hernandez. The insufficiency
of evidence brings serious reasonable doubt to the criminal liability of the
accused. It has been ruled consistently:

A basic, ineluctable precept underlies all criminal proceedings:

that the prosecution carrier the burden of proving an accused's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Its case must rise on its own

5
Exhibit “E” Prosecution’s Evidence
6
Malayan Insurance vs. Phil. Nails and Wires Corp. G.R. No. 138084, April 10, 2002

Page 6 of 9 / pao-mgtc
 merits, not trusting on the weakness of the defense. This is a
matter of due process. The prosecution's failure to discharge its
burden necessarily negates the accused's criminal liability.

Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only

in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in
the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the
prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its
burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must
be acquitted.7

With the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of

establishing the guilt of the accused Brian Hernandez beyond reasonable
doubt, this court should be constrained, as is its bounden duty when
reasonable doubt persists, to acquit the accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that the case of People of the Philippines vs. Brian Hernandez in Criminal
Case No. R-PSG-21-00542 for Carnapping against Brian Hernandez a.k.a.
Boyong Hernandez be DISMISSED for the failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Other just and equitable relief are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City, August 16, 2023.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Counsel de oficio
7
People of the Philippines vs. Brendo Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020

Page 7 of 9 / pao-mgtc
 3rd Floor, Bahay Aruga - PSWD
Eusebio Bldg. City Hall Compound
Caruncho Avenue, San Nicolas, Pasig City

By

ATTY. CHARMAINE M. HERNANDEZ

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64466
IBP Lifetime No 013820
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0017936

ATTY. MARCELINO C. ARCE IV

Public Attorney II
Roll No.63197
IBP No. 246707/Cagayan
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0017936

ATTY. MARIA GICEL T. CAMBRI

Public Attorney II
Roll of Attorneys No. 70275
IBP Member No. 234215 / June 13, 2022
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0015885

NOTICE

Page 8 of 9 / pao-mgtc
Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Branch 161, Pasig City

Greetings!

1Kindly submit the foregoing Memorandum for the kind consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court.

ATTY. MARIA GICEL T. CAMBRI

Copy Furnished:

SACP AILEEN C. SABARRE

Office of the City Prosecutor
7th floor, Hall of Justice, Pasig City

Page 9 of 9 / pao-mgtc