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. 10883
(Anti-Carnapping Act 2016)
ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.

x------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Plaintiff, by the undersigned prosecutors, and unto this Honorable Court, submits this

Trial Memorandum as follows:

THE CASE

Romulo Takad is charged with the crime of violating R.A. 10833 (Anti-Carnapping Act of

2016) for taking the motorcycle with sidecar (Tricycle) of Carlos Parlade. Said tricycle was

reassigned to Mr. Parlade by the Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) when the

original assignee, Teresa Lacsamana, the accused’s live-in partner defaulted on her

installment payments. The accused denied the charge against him.

THE FACTS

Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) extends loans to Sakbayan members and the

members of Tricycle Operators and Drivers Associations (TODA). In May 2003, Ma.

Teresa Lacsamana together with 5 other members of SCCPPTODA 2 (Samahan)

acquired a loan of P480,000.00 from BDC. Lacsamana's share was P80,000.00 which

she used to acquire a chattel mortgage to claim a tricycle under her name. Romulo Takad,

her current live-in partner was the one who got the tricycle with Lacsamana.

BDC gave the group thirty months to settle the loan with daily payments to the Samahan's

treasurer, Ricardo Marasigan. Lacsamana defaulted on paying her installments with the

last being recorded in July 2007 according to BDC's account officer Zenny Aguirre. BDC

consigned the tricycle to Marasigan on October 2 while Lacsamana was given the

opportunity to pay her remaining debt until October 17. They were not able to comply with

the deadline given by BDC.

On November 20, 2007, BDC reassiged the tricycle to Carlos Parlade. However, the

tricycle was stolen from the Parlade residences at one o'clock in the morning of November

21, 2007. Parlade ran after his stolen tricycle while Mario Mankas was in front of their

house when the scene happened. Parlade immediately informed Aguirre of the

carnapping. Both Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas postively identified Romulo Takad

as the one who stole the tricycle.

Romulo Takad was arrested and brought to the police station that same afternoon.

THE ISSUE

The main issue is whether or not Romulo Takad committed carnapping, in violation of

R.A. 10883, or the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016

ARGUMENTS

Testimonies and evidence of the Prosecution and the narration of events and positive

identification of the witnesses’ show that the accused Romulo Takad carnapped the

tricycle owned by The Bayan Development Corporation, which at that time was assigned

to Carlos Parlade.

I. ESTABLISHING ROMULO TAKAD AS THE ONE WHO COMMITTED THE

CRIME

A. Statements of Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas

On November 21, 2007 at one in the morning Carlos Parlade, who at that had

possession of the subject tricycle, had encountered the thief stealing the

tricycle and manage to identify that the thief was the accused. Parlade

managed to identify the thief as he shouted ““Hoy, bat dala-dala mo iyang

motor.” The thief then glanced at Parlade and drove away with the tricycle.
Parlade later explained that the thief glanced at him long enough that he

managed to identify the accused as the thief, as can been seen in this

testimony:

Q: You said that you shouted at the man on the tricycle and he looked but

suddenly started the motor and drove away with the tricycle, is that right?

A: yes,sir

Q: Since the purpose of the man was to flee from you, he merely glanced back,

is that right?

A: Hindi po, opo, medyo matagal po

Another witness to this event is Mario Mankas, at the same day two in the

morning of November 21, 2007, he managed to recognize the accuse fleeing

with the stolen tricycle as he was washing his hands in the front gate near the

street. Both Parlade and Mankas identified the Takad as thief of the tricycle

later that day at the police station.

B. Denial of the Accused

On Takad’s testimony, he said he was at home alone asleep on the time of

the tricycle was stolen. Takad claims in his alibi that he was asleep at that

time, however it is not impossible for him to commit the crime. Based on the

facts of the case, it is possible for Takad to have committed the crime. Takad

claims he was at home, his home is located at 374 Villa Street, Palatiw,

Pasig City and the scene of the crime to place in West Road, Maybunga,
Pasig City. There was also access to public transportation and the low

congestion of traffic very early in the morning. Takad could have easily

traveled to West Road, stole the tricycle and went back home to set-up his

alibi. The proximity of the home of the accused, the ease of traffic and the

availability makes the possibility that he could have committed the crime

with ease. Excerpt from Takad’s cross examination:

PROSEC. DE LEON: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you reside at 374

Villa Street, Palatiw, Pasig City. How far is this from West Road, Maybunga,

Pasig City?

A. It is quite far, sir.

Q. Give us an estimate of the distance?

A. From Pasig Kapitolyo to Edsa Shrine in Ortigas.

Q. Do you reckon by road distance, using the

regular route?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there available public transportation running

 that route on a 24-hour basis?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In other words, if you want to go to Maybunga

Pasig you can go there anytime?

A. Yes, sir.

In this circumstance the denial and alibi of Takad cannot usurp the testimony

and identification of Parlade and Mankas of stealing of the subject tricycle as it

was physical possible for him to commit the crime.

II. Legality of Repossession

In order for the accused and Ms. Lacsamana to obtain the subject tricycle they

had agreed a loan of P480,000.00 with the group SCCPPTODA 2 with Bayan

Development Group. Each of the six members of SCCPPTODA 2 received a

loan of month of P80,000.00 payable in thrifty (30) months. The purpose of the

loan was to purchase tricycles. Ms. Lacsamana agreed and signed the loan

agreement which detailed her obligations and the consequences of default

payment. Section 20 and 20.1 of the agreement provides that all of those who

agreed and signed fully understands the provisions of the agreement and the
consequence of non-fulfillment will be of the “Hatakin ang tricycle at prangkisa

na kabling sa Chattel Mortgage Contract sa BDC.”

The agreement Ms. Lacsamana signed is a Chattel Mortgage Contract.

Act No. 1508 Section provides for the definition of Chattel Mortgage

Agreement:

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.

According to the Enforceability of a Chattel Mortgage in the Publication of Lex

Mundi written by Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & de los Angeles:

Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the loan secured by the

mortgage, and the creditor decides to foreclose, the right of the mortgagee or

its representative to take possession of the chattel may be implied from the

provision which gives him the right to sell. For the avoidance of doubt,
 provisions entitling the mortgagee to take immediate possession of the chattel

upon default are usually included in the mortgage deed.

Generally, this can be done without need of judicial 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.

In the situation of Ms. Lacsamana, she defaulted her payment and failed to

fulfill her obligation in the Chattel Mortgage Contract. The definition of Chattel

Mortgage provides that the owner of the property provides the ownership of the

property to the lender until such time as the loan is paid in full and the chattel

mortgage is cancelled. In this case BDC is now the owner of the subject tricycle

as Ms. Lacsamana failed to pay her fees on time.

III. Romulo Takad committed the crime of carnapping.

In this case the accused committed an act that violates the provision of

Republic Act No. 10883 – An Act Providing for a New Anti – Carnapping Law

of The Philippines. Ms. Lacsamana no longer owns the subject tricycle on the

time that his live – in husband took the subject property of BDC assigned to

Carlos Parlade in the early morning of November 21, 2007.

Sec. 2(e) of R.A. 10883 provides that a tricycle is within the terms of the

definition of a motor vehicle. Sec. 2(e) of R.A. 10883 is as follows:

Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular

power using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street

sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian

trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which run only on

rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used

exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels,

when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle,

shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating;

In this case Romulo Takad took possession of a tricycle which is a motor

vehicle of another without the latter’s consent. The subject tricycle was in the

ownership and at that time was in the possession of Carlos Parlade. Thus, the

act committed by Takad is Carnaping. Sec. 3 of R.A. 10883 provides for the

definition of carnapping.

Sec. 3 of R.A. 10883 is as follows:

Sec. 3. Carnapping; Penalties. – Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain,

of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by

means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon

things.
In People vs. Calabroso, the elements of carnapping are as follows:

1.Actual taking of the vehicle

2.The offender intends to gain from taking the vehicle

3.The vehicle belongs to another person, not the offender

4.The taking was either without the owner's consent, by means of violence or

intimidation or the use of force on things

Based on the testimonies of Parlade and Mankas elements of carnapping are

present. The tricycle in the early morning of November 21, 2007 was in the

possession of Carlos Parlade assigned by the owner BDC. Carlos Parlade

parked the tricycle in front of his house, when the tricycle was stolen by Takad.

It is established that Parlade did not give consent of Takad taking the tricycle

as Parlade shouted “Hoy, bat dala-dala mo iyang motor.” And chased after

Takad.

In the case of People vs. Julkipli Asamuddin Y. Salapudin, intent to gain or

animus lucrandi is defined as Intent to gain is an internal act presumed from

the unlawful taking 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.
 In this case the accused has motive and intent to gain when he shouted “

Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.” To Ms. Aguirre, when

Ms. Lacsamana and Romulo Takad were denied to pay their loan.

The testimonies, positive identification and narration of the witnesses provides

that the accused committed the crim of carnapping and is punishable by R.A.

10883.

The Accused liable to Civil Damages to the Victims

Just in the Jurisprudence in the case of People v. Fernandez the crime of carnapping,

victims should be entitled to damages in the sum of representing the total installment

payments made us agreed upon the in the chattel mortgage on the subject tricycle.

CONCLUSION

In the early morning of November 21, 2007, a tricycle owned by Bayan Development

Corporation and assigned to Carlos Parlade was taken away by the accused Romulo

Takad. The accused is charged with the crime of carnapping. The prosecution has

presented witnesses and evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused

committed the crime of carnapping and is punishable by the provisions of R.A. 10883

Anti-Carnapping Act 2016.

 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Prosecution respectfully prays that the court render judgement:

1. The Accused Romulo Takad guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of

carnapping penalized under Republic Act No. 10883 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016

and

2. The Accused Romulo Takad be adjudged civilly liable to indemnify his victims.

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

{Explanation: A copy of this memorandum has been served by registered mail in view of

distance and strong typhoon.}

City of Manila for Pasig City, December 1, 2019.

VICENTE RIO S. DIZON

Counsel for Bayan Development
Corporation
2nd Flr. New World Hotel
1588 Pedro Gil St, Malate, Manila, 1004
Metro Manila
Atty. Roll No.060397
IBP 5646132465765 12-1-19
PTR 32132165489676 12-1-19
MCLE Compliance IV-305
 Email: vrdizon3@gmail.com

VINCENT PAULO F. BACULO

Counsel for Bayan Development
Corporation
2nd Flr. New World Hotel
1588 Pedro Gil St, Malate, Manila, 1004
Metro Manila
Atty. Roll No.111694
IBP 3213241654654 12-1-19
PTR 23123112321 12-1-19
MCLE Compliance IV-310
Email: vpfbaculo@gmail.com

Copy furnished:
Atty. Shaira Bai C. Ampa
123 Mahilo Avenue
Pasig City