REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Batangas City Branch 4
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 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. TU9952 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 EIGHTYTHOUSAND PESOS each payable for thirty (30) months with thirtysix 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 Parlade’s 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 AntiCarnapping 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 latter’s 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 anticarnapping 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 aren’t 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 defendant’s 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
8
