REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TUGUEGARAO CITY SECOND JUDICIAL REGION Branch III
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 tthis memorandum and state:
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. The accused, with intent to gain and without knowledge and consent of the owner, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and drive away a Kawasaki motorcycle with sidecar, colored black, bearing plate No. TU-9952, with value of P80,000.00 belonging to Bayan Development Corporation, represented by Zenny Aguirre, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) granted a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2 (Samahan) in the amount of 480,000.00 which is partitioned among its six (6) members. Relative to this, a Kasuduan was entered into by BDC and Samahan on March 2003. Under the said Kasunduan, 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 and as agreed upon, she bought a tricycle which is now the subject of this case. Lacsamana, however, defaulted in her loan. She had her last payment on July 2003, barely four (4) months from the constitution of the Kasunduan. In pursuant to the Kasunduan, Zennie Aguirre, the accounts officer of BDC, pulled-out the subject tricycle from Lacsamana,the latter being in default in the payment of her loan. 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: 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 latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. 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:[3] •
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, or apoderamiento, 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. In the instant case, it is proven that these elements of carnapping were present. Witnesses, in their statements, saw accused, Romulo Takad, took the subject tricycle and drove it away from the premises of Carlos 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 f the accused constitute the crime of carnapping, therefore, he must be held liable for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act.
Positive identification of witnesses Witnesses, Carlos Parlade and Mario Mankas, positively identified the accused as the person who unlawfully took the tricycle, subject of herein case. 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 accused, Romulo Takad, was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. No improper motive was imputed on these witnesses who positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the offense. Their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are 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. The accused in the instant case professed that the The accused failed to meet the requisites for alibi to be considered as a valid defense. 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’s 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. RELIEFS WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this HONORABLE COURT, that judgement be rendered making Gloria Supermart Inc., liable for damages for the injury suffered by Ms. Bueno’s son. Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for. Quezon City, November 27, 2011.
Atty. A Counsel for the Plaintiff
