Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch __, Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. ___

Plaintiff, Viol. of RA 6539
-versus – (Anti-Carnapping Act)
ROMULO TAKAD
Accused,
x----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution, by the undersigned public prosecutor,

respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The prosecution, through the undersigned Public

Prosecutor, charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation

of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the

AntiCarnapping Act. That on or about 1:00am of the 21th day

of November 2007, at Maybunga, Pasig City, Philippines, and

Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 2 of 9
x----------------------------------x
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-

named accused with intent to gain and without the consent of

the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and

feloniously take, steal and carry away one (1) unit tricycle

bearing plate No. TS-9952 then owned by Bayan

Development Corporation, valued at ₱80,000.00, to the

damage and prejudice of the owner thereof.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On May 2003, the Bayan Development Corporation

(BDC), represented by its Account Officer Zenny Aguirre

(Aguirre), extended a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2

(Samahan) amounting to 480,000.00 pesos, evidenced by

a promissory note, chattel mortgage and Kasunduan to

that effect. Ma. Teresa Lacsamana (Lacsamana), the live-

in-partner of the accused, was one of the “borrowers” in this

transaction and received a share of 80,000.00 pesos.

2. Lacsamana, however, defaulted in her loan. She had

her last payment on July 2003, barely four (4) months from

the Kasunduan. Pursuant to the Kasunduan, Aguirre pulled

out the subject tricycle from Lacsamana on October 2, 2003.

Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 3 of 9
x----------------------------------x
3. Aguirre gave Lacsamana until October 17 2003 within

which to redeem the tricycle. However, Lacsamana and the

accused appeared only on October 22 to redeem the tricycle.

Aguirre denied them to pay. Takad, who was with Lacsamana

at that time, uttered, “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang

tricycle sa Pasig.”

4. On November 20, 2003, the tricycle was given

to the new assignee Carlos Parlade (Parlade), who also

resided within Pasig City.

5. On November 21, 2003, at around 1:00 am, at the

residence of Parlade, he saw the accused Takad, pushing the

tricycle away. Parlade shouted at Takad, but the accused

kicked the start engine of the tricycle and drove away. Parlade

reported the incident to Aguire and on 1:30 in the afternoon

of the same day, they reported to the police station. The

incident was said to be witnessed by Mario Mankas (Mankas),

neighbor of Parlade.
Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 4 of 9
x----------------------------------x
ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the

following issue is presented for discussion:

I. Whether or not BDC is the rightful owner of the

tricycle.

II. Whether or not Takad committed the crime of

carnapping.

ARGUMENTS

I. BDC is the rightful owner of the tricycle.

Lacsamana is bound by the Kasunduan with the BDC.

Lacsamana has the obligation to pay the amortization, and in

failure thereof a consequence shall be imposed.

Furthermore, she voluntarily signed the chattel

mortgage of the vehicle with the BDC. The lender then

secures the loan with a mortgage over the chattel. The legal

ownership of the chattel is transferred to the purchaser at the

time of purchase, and the mortgage is removed if the loan

has been repaid. However, the mortgagee is entitled to take

Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 5 of 9
x----------------------------------x
immediate possession of the chattel upon default. The Chattel

Mortgage Law defines it as follows:

Sec. 3. Chattel mortgage defined. — A chattel

mortgage is 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.1

The defense maintains that Lacsamana is still the rightful

owner of the subject motor vehicle. However, in a 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 canceled.

Therefore, BDC is the rightful owner of the chattel or tricycle

since Ms. Lacsamana breached their mortgage agreement by

the default in payment.

II. Takad committed the crime of carnapping.

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 latter’s consent, or by means of

1
Act No. 1508, sec. 3
Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 6 of 9
x----------------------------------x
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force

upon things. According to People v. Lagat he elements of

carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-

Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following:

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

2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the
offender himself;
3. 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; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of
the vehicle.2

In the instant case, the accused has committed the act

of carnapping the motorcycle by:

a. The actual taking of the tricycle as witnessed by

Parlarde and Mankas.

b. The tricycle belongs to the BDC as discussed in the

preceding issue. Nowhere in the facts can the accused be said

to be an owner of the said vehicle.

c. The taking of the tricycle without the consent of the

BGC nor of Parlarde to whom the tricycle was assigned is

evident by the testimony of witnesses. The unlawful taking is

defined as:

Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the

motor 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

2
People v. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044. September 14, 2011
Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 7 of 9
x----------------------------------x
the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same.3
d. The taking is done with intent to gain. In People vs.

Calabroso, G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000, intent to

gain is presumed when one takes a property belonging to

another against his will.

Unless the contrary appears, animo lucrandi or intent

to gain is presumed when one takes the property belonging
to another against his will, whether force or violence was
employed. The unlawful taking with violence or intimidation
against the "owner" of the property being the natural and
proper motive for the perpetration of the act.4

In the instant case, it is proven that these elements of

carnapping were present. Witnesses, in their statements, saw

accused took the subject tricycle and drove it away from the

premises of Parlade with whom the subject tricycle was

assigned by BDC. His intent to gain is presumed from his act

of unlawfully taking the subject tricycle from its owner. Such

acts of the accused constitute the crime of carnapping,

therefore, he must be held liable for violation of the Anti-

Carnapping Act.

The accused 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. His alibi

3
People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284
4
People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 113785, 14 September 1995, 248 SCRA 207.
Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 8 of 9
x----------------------------------x
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 to commit.

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 the accused.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Pasig City, November 28, 2017.

Memorandum for the Prosecution
Criminal Case No. __
People v. Takad
Page 9 of 9
x----------------------------------x

(Sgd) ATTY. RIZALDY FERRER

Public Prosecutor

Address:

IBP No:

PTR No:

Roll No:

MCLE No:

Copy furnished:

ATTY. PAULO A CRUZ

Counsel for the Accused

EXPLANATION

In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above

Memorandum was served via registered mail as personal

service could not be availed of without causing undue

hardship to defendant.

(Sgd) ATTY. RIZALDY FERRER

Public Prosecutor