Diorella Velasquez

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 12345H
-versus-

Violation of R.A. 6539

(Anti-Carnapping Act)

ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM

Defendant, by counsel respectfully submits its memorandum in

the case:

The Case

Plaintiff, Romulo filed this motion to dismiss the case, claiming

that the witness testimonies were not credible in establishing that he
was the one who stole Carlos Parlades Tricycle on November 21st.

Diorella Velasquez

The Facts

Romulo Takads live-in partner, Theresa Lacsamana obtained a

tricycle loan worth 80,000 pesos with Bayan Development Corporation
(BDC), the loan was extended by Zenaida Aguirre, a BDC employee.
The official receipt and car registration were registered under Theresa
Lacsamana. The tricycle was pulled out due to non-payment on 2003,
the pull-out was part of the KASUNDUAN that the parties signed.
Theresa tried to reclaim the tricycle by offering to pay the 14,000
pesos arrears, but Aguirre refused to accept the payment and claimed
Takad threatened by saying huwag kong makikita yang tricycle sa
Pasig, Takad denied threatening Aguirre. Takads version was that he
said that he did not wish to see the Tricycle in Pasig, because it would
break his heart. The tricycle was given to Carlos Parlade, the new
assignee. On November 21, 2003 at around 1am Carlos Parlade saw
someone driving away his tricycle , he would later identity the person
who took the tricycle as Takad, Mario another witness also identified
Takad, as the person who stole the tricycle. On Cross examination the
description provided by Carlos and Mario did not match Takads built.
Carlos described the person as Malapad but on cross examination
Takad who only weighted 120 pounds is described as Manipis. It was
also confirmed that both witnesses were able to identify Takad because
Takad was pointed out by the Police Investigators. Takad denied the
accusations and said he was at home sleeping on the night of the
incident.

The Issue

1. Whether or not the witnesss description of the accused as

Takad should be given credence.

Diorella Velasquez

2. Whether or not BDC is the rightful owner of the Tricycle.

3. Whether or not Takad is guilty of violating RA 6539 or the AntiCarnapping law.

Arguments.

1. Romulo Takad did not steal the Tricycle, Takad was at home
sleeping during the incident and the description that Carlos
and Mario, the 2 witnesses provided did not match Takads
Physique. Carlos was 20 meters away from the Tricycle when
he saw someone driving away the tricycle, this incident
happened at 1am so it was impossible for him to get a clear
view of the victims face. The other witness Mario said that he
was looking down because he was washing his hands when
the speeding tricycle past by, Mario claims in that short
instance he managed to look up and saw Takad, he said he
knew it was Takad because the way his backed look. Mario
never got a clear view of the Carnapper. He just had a
glimpse of the of the person driving the speeding tricycle at
1am and there was insufficient illumination for him to clearly
identify the carnapper. The Police Investigators had Takad
singled out to be identified by the witnesses. Takad was not
introduced to the witnesses in row with other suspects. Carlo
and Mario identified Takad, because the Police led them to
believe that the man they saw that night was Takad.

2. BDC is not the rightful owner of the Tricycle. Theresa

Lacsama, Romulo Takads live-in partner is the owner of the
tricycle. As evidenced by the transcript of stenographic notes
during the Cross examination of Zenaida Aguirre.

Diorella Velasquez

ATTY. CRUZ: Did you get a court order transferring

ownership of the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana to BCD before
you took the tricycle?

AGUIRRE: No, sir.

ATTY. CRUZ: you took it from her because she could not pay
her debt, is that right?

AGUIRRE: Yes, sir.

ATTY. CRUZ: Did you make an effort to buy the tricycle from
Ms. Lacsamana before it was stolen?

AGUIRRE: No, sir.

ATTY. CRUZ: It is your understanding that when she did not

pay her debt , the ownership of the tricycle is automatically
transferred to BDC, is that right?

AGUIRRE: No, sir, since she had not paid her obligation, BDC
still owns the tricycle

Diorella Velasquez
ATTY. CRUZ: Let us make it clear, you said that BDC loaned Ms.
Lacsamana the
money, which she used to buy the tricycle; it
was not BDC that bought the tricycle , it was Ms. Lacsamana who
bought the tricycle?
AGUIRRE: Yes, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ: Who is the owner of the tricycle?
AGUIRRE: Ma. Theresa Lacsamana is the owner of the tricycle. But
the money she used in buying the tricycle was the money of BDC.
ATTY. CRUZ: In other words, as you understood it , if she did not pay
the loan BDC becomes the owner of the tricycle, correct?
AGUIRRE: Yes, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ: Because of your understanding, you did not bother to
file any action in court to transfer ownership of the tricycle from
Lacsamana to BDC is that right?
AGUIRRE: Yes, sir.
Theresa Lacsama is still the rightful owner of the tricycle, the loan was
obtained by BDC, but Lacsama is still the rightful owner. The
Kasunduan which the parties signed stated that.
15.1 Kapag ang isang kasapi ay hindi makabigay ng tatlong
krampatang arawang hulog-bayad sa loob ng isang kinsenas o
napapaloob sa isang tseke sa BDC, ang kanyang tricycle ay hahatakin
ng SAMAHAN kasama ang linya (TODA) at/o prangkisa at ito ay
pangangasiwaan ng SAMAHAN upang ang arawang kita nito ay
tuwirang gagamitan ng SAMAHAN para sa darating na arawang hulogbayad ng kasaping nagkasala;
15. 2 Ang nahatak na tricycle ay mananatili sa pangangasiwa ng
SAMAHAN hanggat hindi lubos na nababayaran ang nagging
pagkukulang sa SAMAHAN;
15.3 Ang Tricycle na mula sa inutang sa BDC ay hindi maaaring isanla,
ibenta o ilipat ng pagmamay-ari hanggat hindi pa lubusang
nababayaran ang utang at pananagutan sa BDC.

The Kasunduan clearly stated that in case of non-payment the tricycle

will be pulled by BDC, and that it will remain in BDCs possession until
the arrears are paid. The Kasunduan did not state that the ownership

Diorella Velasquez
of the tricycle will be transferred to BDC due to non-payment. This
clearly shows that the ownership of the tricycle in question still
belonged to Lacsamana.

3. Assuming that

it was Takad that stole the Tricycle he cannot be

found guilty of carnapping. The elements of carnapping as defined

and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 are the

following:
A.
B.

That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the

offender himself;
C.
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
D.
That the offender intends to gain from the taking of
the vehicle.
Even if we were to give credence to the testimony of the 2 witnesses
that it was Takad that stole the tricycle, Takad is not guilty of
carnapping. An essential element of carnapping is the taking of the
vehicle without the consent of the owner and with intent to gain. The
tricycle is owned by Theresa Lacsamana, Takads live in partner and
not BDC nor Carlos Parlade.

Diorella Velasquez

Wherefore, Accused Romulo Takad respectfully prays that the

Court to render judgement:

1. Dismissing the case against defendant for lack

of merit.

Pasig City for Manila

June 15, 2014
DIORELLA VELASQUEZ
Counsel for Petitioner
Suite 123 MDC
Libis,

100 Bldg.
Quezon City
Attorney Roll 99999
IBP No. 111111 10-10-10
PTR No. 2222222 01-02-2009

MCLE Compliance III-1234

Email:dior_velasquez@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished (by personal delivery)

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz

Diorella Velasquez

Manila St., Ermita, Manila

Diorella Velasquez