REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Batangas City
Branch 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 12345-H

Violation of RA 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act)

ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.

X==================================

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

Comes now the public prosecution and unto this Honorable

Court most respectfully submit this memorandum and state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 22, 2003, herein private complainant Bayan

Development Corporation (herein BDC) represented by its authorized
representative Zenny Aguirre, through the undersigned Public
Prosecutor filed an Information against herein accused Romulo
Takad (Accused) for violation of Republic Act No. 6539 otherwise
known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended. As proven,
accused with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of
any duly authorized representative of BDC, took away one (1)
Kawasaki motorcycle colored black with sidecar with plate No. TU-
9952 owned by the latter.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sometime in May 2003, BAYAN DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION (BDC) granted a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2
1
(herein Samahan) in the amount of 480,000.00 which is partitioned
among its six (6) members.

Relative to this, a Kasunduan was entered into by BDC and

Samahan under which, the six (6) members are to receive EIGHTY-
THOUSAND PESOS 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, a member of said Samahan, was then

extended the amount of EIGHTY-THOUSAND PESOS (Php
80,000,000) secured by a promissory note, chattel mortgage and the
Kasunduan in case of default in payment.

Lacsamana, however, defaulted in her loan and pursuant to the

Kasunduan, Zennie Aguirre, the accounts officer of BDC, pulled-out
the subject tricycle from Lacsamana. Said tricycle then was placed
under the custody of the treasurer of the Samahan.

BDC, through Aguirre, gave Lacsamana a chance to redeem

the tricycle and set a period within which the latter must settle her
obligation, however, she was unable to pay the amount on the date
agreed upon. So that five days thereafter, Lacsamana, together with
her live-in partner, Romulo Takad, went to Aguirre and pleaded that
they be allowed to redeem the tricycle but Aguirre, as instructed by
her superior, denied their plea. In the said incident, Takad, who was
with Lacsamana at that time, uttered, Huwag na huwag kong
makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.

Subsequently, the tricycle was seized from the treasurer of the

Samahan. So that on November 20, 2003, the subject tricycle was
given to a new assignee, Carlos Parlade. Before a contract could be
executed, Parlade notified Aguirre that the tricycle was stolen at 1:00
in the morning of November 21, 2003 near the house of Parlade.
During investigation, Parlade, and another witness, Mario Mankas,
identified the accused as the perpetrator. Both alleged that they saw
Takad driving the tricycle away from Parlades residence.

ISSUE/S:

WHETHER OR NOT ROMULO TAKAD COMMITTED THE CRIME

OF CARNAPPING.

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSIONS:

2
BDC is the rightful owner of the tricycle.

It should be emphasized that when Theresa Lacsamana loaned

from BDC, she agreed and signed in a Kasunduan which detailed her
obligations as a borrower and the consequence if ever she default on
payment. She also voluntarily agreed and signed the chattel
mortgage of the motor vehicle to serve as the collateral for the loan
and likewise, she executed a promissory note indicating her
agreement to pay the loan and follow other conditions as stipulated in
the Kasunduan.

Section 3 of Act No. 1508 also known as the Chattel Mortgage

Law defines chattel mortgage as:

xxx a conditional sale of personal property as security for

the payment of a debt, or the performance of some other
obligation specified therein, the condition being that the
sale shall be void upon the seller paying to the purchaser
a sum of money or doing some other act named. If the
condition is performed according to its terms the
mortgage and sale immediately become void, and the
mortgagee is thereby divested of his title.

Under a chattel mortgage, the purchaser borrows funds for the

purchase of movable personal property (the chattel) from the lender.
The lender then secures the loan with a mortgage over the chattel.
Legal ownership of the chattel is transferred to the purchaser at the
time of purchase, and the mortgage is removed since the loan has
been repaid.

Provisions entitling the mortgagee to take immediate

possession of the chattel upon default are usually included in the
deed. Generally, this can be done without court proceedings.
However, if the mortgagor or person in possession of the chattel
refuses to surrender possession, replevin proceedings (i.e.
proceedings to obtain possession of personal property) must be
instituted in the judicial courts.

The defense may argue that Romulo Takad must be

considered as the co-owner of the tricycle carnapped being a
common-law husband of Ms. Theresa Lacsamana. But as clearly
explained in the definitions of chattel mortgage, the owner, or buyer
of the property gives ownership of the property to the lender until
such time as the loan is paid in full and the chattel mortgage is
cancelled. Therefore, BDC is the now rightful owner of the chattel or
tricycle since Ms. Lacsamana breached their mortgage agreement by
the default in payment.

3
 Likewise, a written agreement or Kasunduan has its own
enforceability if it is signed by the parties involved and validly
notarized by a notary public.

Under Rule 130, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 7. Evidence of written agreements. When the

terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
to be considered as containing all such terms, and,
therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest. x x x

In the case of Development Bank of the Philippines vs.

Spouses Jesus and Anacorita Doyon (G.R. No. 167238, March 25,
2009), the Supreme Court held that:

xxx the petitioner had the legal right to foreclose on the

real and chattel mortgages.

Since respondents neither assailed the xxx promissory

notes nor presented proof of payment thereof, their
obligation remained outstanding. Upon default, by prior
mutual agreement, petitioner had the right to foreclose on
the real and chattel mortgages securing their loans. xxx

When the principal obligation becomes due and the

debtor fails to perform his obligation, the creditor may
foreclose on the mortgage for the purpose of alienating
the (mortgaged) property to satisfy his credit.

Also, the mere fact that the borrower did not refuse in the
pulling out of the mortgaged motor vehicle when they defaulted in
payment, is an express admission that they recognize the
Kasunduan, Chattel Mortgage and the promissory note that they
executed. And with their admission during cross examination that
they were actually the ones who brought the said tricycle to
SAMAHAN Treasurer, is a clear indication of their voluntary surrender
of the chattel without the need for the writ of replevin or court order.

Romulo Takad committed acts in violation of the Anti-

Carnapping Act.

Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as "An Act Preventing

and Penalizing Carnapping", defines carnapping as 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.
4
The anti-carnapping law is a special law, different from the crimes of
robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. The anti-
carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor
vehicles. The elements of the crime of carnapping are:

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;

3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender

himself;

4. That the taking is 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.

Unlawful taking is the taking of the vehicle without the consent

of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from
the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose of the same. (Luis B. Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code, Book Two, 14th ed. (1998), p. 619.)
Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, in this instant case, as an
element of the crime of carnapping, is an internal act and hence
presumed from the unlawful taking of the tricycle.
As stated in the case of People vs. Julkipli Asamuddin Y.
Salapudin A.K.A."Jul" and "Rey" (G.R. No. 213913,
September 02, 2015) intent to gain is an internal act
presumed from the unlawful taking49 of the motor vehicle
which the appellant failed to overcome with evidence to
the contrary. Verily, the mere use of the thing unlawfully
taken constitutes gain.
The accused Romulo Takad has the only direct motive to steal
the motorcycle as evidenced by his threatening words wag na wag
kong makikita yang tricycle na yan sa may Pasig when he and her
live-in partner Teresa Lacsamana tried to redeem the said vehicle.
His alibi during the trial proceeding that those words were uttered to
mean that his feelings would be hurt when he sees the tricycle in
Pasig is unacceptable, considering the manner it was said and the
emphasis Huwag na Huwag which clearly infers to threat.
The incident of carnapping happened exactly within Pasig and
the proximate distance of the place where the tricycle was carnapped
and where the accused lives makes it possible for accused Takad to
commit.
Also, he was positively identified by the two witnesses Carlos P.
Parlade and Mario Mankas, who both have no motive at all against

5
the accused. They would not dare to risk their lives or safety if they
arent sure of the identity of the accused.
A detailed scrutiny of the evidence presented by the
prosecution would reveal that the guilt of accused Romulo Takad is
beyond reasonable doubt. The primary witness, Parlade expressed
that he was able to catch Takad while he was still pushing the tricycle
away and because of the light from post and the short distance, he
was able to clearly see the face of Takad. While witness Mankas was
also able to clearly identify the accused from his place.

In People vs dela Cruz (GR No. 141162-62, July 11, 2002), the
Court declared that categorical and consistent positive identification,
absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial.

In the present case, the testimonies of the two witnesses were

not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, entitled to
full faith and credit. They have no reason to perjure. Said witnesses
were moved by their desire to see that justice is to be done.

Accused interposed alibi as defense.

In the instant case, accused denied the acts imputed against

him and stated that he was at home, sleeping, during the commission
of the crime. Such defense of alibi is generally considered with
suspicion and are always received with caution, not only because
they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can
be easily fabricated.

It is not enough that the he was somewhere else when the

crime transpired. He must likewise duly establish that he was so far
away that it was not physically possible for him to be present at the
crime scene or its immediate vicinity at or about the time of its
commission. Moreover, he failed to present witnesses who may
corroborate his statement. It is a time-honored principle that the
defense of alibi cannot prevail over the witnesses positive
identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. For it to
prosper, the court must be convinced that there was physical
impossibility on the part of the accused to have been at the locus
criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.

CONCLUSION

From the foregoing discussions on the issue at hand, it is

evident that BDC is the rightful and legal owner of the Kawasaki
6
motorcycle with sidecar, color black, bearing plate No. TU 9952. The
Chattel Mortgage, Kasunduan and the Promissory Note being all
binding and legally enforceable not only transfer ownership of the
tricycle to BDC but more so, gives it the right to repossess the said
motor vehicle when its debtor, Teresa Lacsamana defaulted in
payment.

Also, it was clearly implied in the defendants testimony that

they recognize their obligations stipulated in the Chattel Mortgage
Agreement, Kasunduan and the Promisory Note when they
personally delivered the tricycle to the Treasurer of the Samahan.

Romulo Takad commited the crime of carnapping of the above

mentioned tricycle belonging to lender BDC beyond reasonable
doubt. He was the only person with direct motive and intent to steal
the tricycle, as evidenced by his threatening words to Ms. Aguirre.

Also, he was positively identified by witnesses Carlos P.

Parlade and Mario S. Mankas, who both have no motive against
Takad and who would not have risked their lives and their safety by
merely accusing a person whom they would believe as innocent. The
basic elements of carnapping were present when the accused
committed the crime and therefore, Takad should be imposed of the
following penalty as provided in R.A. 6359:

Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is

found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of
motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not
less than fourteen years and eight months and not more
than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation
of persons, or force upon things

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing Memorandum for
complainant Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) be NOTED AND
CONSIDERED and that a Decision be rendered CONVICTING
accused Romulo Takad.

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

7
 March 24, 2017

Prosecution:

Alas-as, Cristina
Calangi, Diana Mae
De Joya, Rose Anne
Divino, Marc Anjo
Gainza, Maria Melinda
Martin, Melissa
Palicpic, Lilane
Sangalang, Mary Angelica