Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Banch !"# Pasig Cit$
PEOPLE O% T&E P&ILIPPINE'
)
Plaintiff(
*esus +
CRI,-CA'E NO-!"#./ + &
RO,ULO C- TA0A1(
Accused(
2 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 2
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM
1efendant( b$ counsel( espectfull$ sub3its its 3e3oandu3 in the case4
The Case
Plaintiff( though the Public Posecuto( filed chages against heein accused fo *iolation of the Anti + Canapping Act b$ clai3ing that the latte( 5ith intent to gain and 5ithout the consent of the plaintiff( stole and do*e a5a$ a 0a5asa6i 3otoc$cle 5ith side side ca( ca( colo coloed ed blac6 blac6(( beain beaing g plate plate NoNo- TU + 77/"( 77/"( 5ith a *alue *alue of P 89(99 89(999( 9( belonging to the plaintiff-
The Facts
At the tial( the plaintiff plaintiff pesented pesented he o5n *esion *esion of facts- 'he naated naated that she is an account office of the Ba$an 1e*elop3ent Copoation :B1C; and as such( the copoation e2tends loans to *aious Tic$cle Opeatos and 1i*es Association :TO1A; including the one 5hee the accused 5as a 3e3be of- 'he stated that so3eti3e in ,a$ "99#( she e2tended a loan to ,a- Teesa Lacsa3ana in the a3ount of P89(999 as pat of a goup loan e2tended to the TO1A and 5as e*idenced b$ a 0asunduan( a po3isso$ note and a chattel 3otgage- The agee3ent( accoding to the abo*e ) 3entioned docu3ents( 5as that the loan 5ould be paid o*e a peiod of thit$ 3onths&o5e*e( ,s- Lacsa3ana defaulted in he pa$3ent of the loan despite the e2tension gi*en to he esulting to the fofeitue and epossession of the tic$cle in fa*o of B1C Accoding Accoding to the plaintiff( the accused Ta Ta6ad 5as 5ith ,s- Lacsa3ana at that ti3e and 5hen the plaintiff efused the said pa$3ent( she head the accused sa$ing < Huwag na
huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig. = A fe5 da$s afte the incident( the tic$cle 5as epoted stolen b$ Calos Palade along 5ith se*eal 5itnesses identif$ing Ta6ad as the 3ain culpit-
The accused( fo his pat( told a diffeent side of the sto$- >hile ad3itting to the fact that ,s- Lacs3ana indeed defaulted in he pa$3ent of the loan( the accused belied the contention that the B1C pulled out the tic$cle fo3 ,s- Lacsa3ana- &e contended that he( togethe 5ith ,s-Lacsa3ana( 5ee the ones 5ho bought the said tic$cle to the house of ,- ,aasigan( the teasue of the TO1A( fo safe6eeping as pe agee3ent contained in the 0asunduan e2ecuted bet5een thei goup and B1C- 'ubse?uentl$( B1C too6 the tic$cle fo3 the teasue of the goup in Octobe !8( "99" and not on No*e3be !8( "99" as stated b$ the plaintiff- The accused also belied the contention of the plaintiff alleging that he theatened the plaintiff b$ sa$ing < Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig”. The accused contented that he has no such intention of theatening the plaintiff- >hat he 3eant b$ those 5ods is the fact that he does not 5ant ,s- Lacsa3ana to ha*e hut feelings egading the epossession of the tic$cle- &e 5as theefoe 3isconstued 5hen he said those 5ods-
The Issues
The Cout defined the issues in this case in this case in its pe + tial ode as follo5s4 !- >hethe o not the identit$ of the peson of the accused 5as cleal$ established "- >hethe o not the ele3ents of canapping punished unde the Anti + Canapping Act 5as po*en be$ond easonable doubt #- >hethe o not the te3s and conditions of the 0asunduan e2ecuted bet5een the paties 5as stictl$ follo5ed .- >hethe o not it 5as cleal$ established that it 5as B1C 5ho actuall$ o5ns the tic$cle sub@ect of the ci3e
Arguments I. THE IDENTITY OF TAKAD AS THE ACCUSED WAS NOT CEARY ESTA!ISHED
The Posecution clai3s that it 5as the accused Ta6ad 5ho too6 the tic$cle fo3 the esidence of Calos Palade- It pesented se*eal 5itnesses 5ho clai3ed the$ sa5 the accused heein as the peson 5ho actuall$ too6 the tic$cle 5ithout the consent and against the 5ill of Calos Palade- &o5e*e( this position does not hold 5ate due to the follo5ing contention4 The e$e5itnesses pesented b$ the posecution did not positi*el$ identif$ espondent Ta6ad as the peson 5ho too6 the tic$cle in ?uestion- Rathe( it based its contention that it 5as Ta6ad 5ho too6 the tic$cle on 3ee cicu3stantial e*idence 5ithout positi*e identification as can be gleaned fo3 the affida*it e2ecuted b$ Calos Palade as can be seen belo54 Q: Please go over your sworn statement and tell us if you gave to the police those descriptions of the accused that you mentioned?
A: I said here in answer to !"# $medyo maigsi ang %uhok” Q: &ut the other description that he is of light comple'ion and has pronounced (aws did you put that in your statement? A: )o sir.
And anothe in this 3anne4 Q: *ou said that you shouted at the man on the tricycle and he looked %ut suddenly started the motor and drove away with the tricycle is that right? A: yessir Q: +ince the purpose of the man was to flee from you he merely glanced %ack is that right? A: Hindi po opo medyo matagal po Q: ,hat is really your answer? A: -po Q: I understand that you went %ack to the police station on )ovem%er " at /:01 in the afternoon? A: *es sir Q: 2he police had told you that 2akad had %een arrested and you have to come %ack and identify him is that right? A: *es sir Q: ,hen you went to the police station they led you into a room and the investigator pointed out 2akad to you is that right? A: *es sir Q: And he asked you if he was the one who took the tricycle? A: *es sir Q:In other words you were not shown the accused 2akad in a police lineup with other persons of the same %uilt so yo u could try to pick him out as the tricycle thief? A: )o sir.
Thus( thee is doubt in the egulait$ of the identification b$ Calos Palade of the accused- %o3 his testi3on$( it is clea that he did not positi*el$ identif$ the accused) appellant- At the ti3e of the incident( he onl$ 3ade a *e$ fleeting glance on the peson At that 3o3ent( he had an i3pession that the accused had a light co3ple2ion and a 5ell)built bod$ :,ed$o 3alapad;- 1uing the poceedings in the police station 5hee he 5as supposed to identif$ the assailant( he identified Ta6ad as allegedl$ the peson 5ho stole the 3otoc$cle( not because he 5as cetain that Ta6ad 5as eall$ the assailant but because he 5as the onl$ peson in the station and because he 5as pointed b$ the in*estigato as thei suspect- The fact is that the accused 5as not identified in a police line)up( but athe he 5as diectl$ pointed- %o3 all indications( the identification of accused)appellant b$ Calos Palade 5as suggested b$ the police and this is ob@ectionable-
As can be gleaned fo3 the case People *s Baconguis( the identification pocess 5as suounded b$ cicu3stances 5hich 5ee cleal$ tainted b$ i3pope suggestion>hile thee is no la5 e?uiing a police line)up as essential to a pope identification( as e*en 5ithout it thee could still be pope identification as long as the police did not suggest the identification to the 5itness( the police in both cases did e*en 3oe than suggest to the co3plainant- In People *s Baconguis( the 'upe3e Cout held that4 Thus, by Lydia's own account, she arrived at the cell where appellant was detained. It was the police officer who pointed the accused and told Lydia that the appellant was the suspect. A show-up, such as what was undertaken by the police in the identification of appellant by Lydia, has been held to be an underhanded mode of identification for "bein pointedly suestive, eneratin confidence where there was none, activatin visual imaination, and, all told, subvertin their reliability as an eyewitness." Lydia knew that she was oin to identify a suspect, whose name had priorly been furnished by her brother-policeman, when she went to the police station. And the police pointed appellant to her, and told her that he was the suspect, while he was behind bars, alone. !eople vs #aconuis, $.%. &o. ()**), +ecember , /
In the case at ba( Calos Palade 5ent to the police station fo the pupose of identification afte he 5as info3ed that the accused 5as aested- &e ne*e 3et Ta6ad pe*iousl$ and he onl$ 6ne5 Ta6ad due to enn$ Aguies state3ent that Ta6ad 5aned enn$ in seeing the tic$cle in PasigIn People *- Acosta( this Cout e@ected the identification b$ a 5itness of the accused 5hile the latte 5as alone in his detention cell- Thee( this Cout held that the identification of the suspect( 5hich 5as tainted b$ the suggesti*eness of ha*ing the 5itness identif$ hi3 5hile he 5as incaceated 5ith no one else 5ith hi3 5ith 5ho3 he 3ight be co3paed b$ the 5itness( 5as less than ob@ecti*e to thus i3pai the tust5othiness of thei identificationThe unusual, coarse and hihly sinular method of identification, which revolts aainst accepted principles of scientific crime detection, alienates the esteem of every 0ust man, and commands neither respect nor acceptance. !eople v. 1ru2, $.%. &o. L-(((, 3arch , )4/
In the sa3e 3anne( ,aio ,an6as testified that he did not diectl$ identified Ta6ad as the peson 5ho too6 the tic$cle- This can be gleaned fo3 the follo5ing4 Q: *ou said that the tricycle was running at a very fast rate. If the driver of the tricycle was driving very fast you will agree with me that you only had a %rief glance of the driver. Is that right? A: *es sir Q: And apart from the fact that the tricycle was running at a very fast speed you could not have seen much of the person driving it %ecause as you said in your affidavit $hindi ko gaanong namukhaan dahil nakayuko ako”. Is that right? A: *es sir. Q: )ow %ecause you only had a glance of the man and %ecause your head was %owed down when you were asked %y the police to descri%e the man on the tricycle you could only descri%e his %uilt. Is that right?
A: *es sir
%o3 the foegoing( none of the 5itnesses positi*el$ identified the Ta6ad as the peson 5ho allegedl$ stole the tic$cle- It is a basic tenet of la5 that cicu3stantial e*idence is the 5ea6est fo3 of e*idence that can be pesented in cout- The onl$ instance that it 5ould po*e eithe the guilt o innocence of the accused is if the cicu3stances 5ould cleal$ point to the accused as the peson 5ho indeed co33itted the ci3e- The testi3on$ of the 5itnesses pesented b$ the posecution po*ed onl$ the fact that thee 5as a lac6 of identification 5ith espect to the identit$ of Ta6ad as the 3ain culpit in the case- Cleal$( 3ee glances at the peson 5ho co33itted the ci3e does not a3ount to a positi*e identification of the peson-
II THE EEMENTS OF CARNA""IN# AS "UNISHED UNDER THE ANTI $ CARNA""IN# ACT WAS NOT CEARY ESTA!ISHED THUS FAIIN# TO "RO%E THE #UIT OF TAKAD !EYOND REASONA!E DOU!T
Unde Republic Act !988# othe5ise 6no5n as the Ne5 Anti + Canapping Act of the Philippines(
Thee is an unla5ful ta6ing of a 3oto *ehicle The ta6ing of the 3oto *ehicle 3ust be 5ithout the o5nes consent The ta6ing 3ust be 5ith intent to gain Thee is an application of *iolence o inti3idation against pesons o foce upon things
As can be gleaned fo3 the facts of the case( as 5ell as the testi3on$ of the 5itnesses( the posecution failed to establish all the ele3ents of canapping 5hich 5ould po*e the guilt of the accused- The posecution failed to establish poof be$ond easonable doubt of the e2istence of the follo5ing ele3ents4 Thee is no unla5ful ta6ing of a 3oto *ehicle Based on the 0asunduan enteed into b$ and bet5een the TO1A and B1C( the o5neship of the tic$cle( in case of failue to pa$ the loan on the scheduled date( 5ill be unde the supe*ision o safe6eeping of the TO1A and not b$ the B1C no shall the o5neship and possession of the tic$cle be tansfeed to anothe- Pat of the 0asunduan in elation this is epoduced belo54 "/.". 3apag ang isang kasapi ay hindi maka%igay ng tatlong karampatang arawang hulog4 %ayad sa loo% ng isang kinsenas o napapaloo% sa isang tseke sa &56 ang kanyan tricycle ay hahatakin ng +A7AHA) kasama ang linya82-5A9 ato ang prangkisa at ito ay pangangasiwaan ng +A7AHA) upang ang arawang kita nito ay tuwirang gagamitin ng +A7AHA) para sa darating na arawang hulog ; %ayad ng kasaping nagkasala "/.. Ang nahatak na tricycle ay mananatili sa pangangasiwa ng +A7AHA) hangga
"/.0. Ang tricycle na mula sa inutang sa &56 ay hindi maaaring isanla i%enta o ilipat ng pagmamayari hangga
As can be seen fo3 the <0asunduan=( the o5ne of the tic$cle in case of default in pa$3ent shall be the TO1A itself and not the B1C- 'ince failue to pa$ the loaned a3ount tansfes the o5neship of the tic$cle to the TO1A( then the B1C( though its epesentati*e( cannot in an$ 5a$ conside itself an o5ne of the tic$cle despite the failue to pa$ the e?uied a3ount- Thus( the " nd ele3ent of the ci3e of canapping 5as not pesent in this case-
III THAT THE "RO%ISIONS OF THE KASUNDUAN WERE NOT FAITHFUY COM"IED WITH
Based on testi3on$ b$ the epesentati*e of B1C( the$ too6 the tic$cle fo3 the defendant afte the latte defaulted in he pa$3ent of the loan 5ithout an$ authoiation fo3 the cout to do so- Thus( constituting a *iolation of e2isting la5s egading appopiation of 3otgaged popeties Aticle "988 of the Ne5 Ci*il Code of the Philippines pohibits the e2ecution of a Pactu3 Co33isoiu3 bet5een the paties- It is stated that4 Art.1== ; 2he creditor cannot appropriate the things given %y way of pledge or mortgage or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary shall %e null and void.
%o3 the po*isions of the <0asunduan= itself( it is e2pessl$ stipulated that in case of failue to pa$ the a3ount of the loan on the date specified( the possession of the tic$cle shall be tansfeed to the oganiation and not to B1C( as 5hat thei epesentati*e did- The <0asunduan= futhe pohibits the tansfe of the said 3oto *ehicle to an$ othe entit$ 5hile the balance is $et to be paid- 'ince the said agee3ent is a contact feel$ enteed into b$ the paties( such an agee3ent constituted the la5 bet5een the paties and it 3ust be co3plied 5ith faithfull$ and in good faithI%. ACSAMANA AND TAKAD OWN THE TRICYCE & SU!'ECT OF THE CRIME
1ue to failue to pa$ the August "99# install3ent( en$ Aguie e?uested Lacsa3ana and Ta6ad to bing the tic$cle to the house of ,aasigan- It 5as pulled out on Octobe "( "99# and fo 3oe o less than !/ da$s the sub@ect tic$cle 5as placed on the custod$ of the teasue- Aguie and Lacsa3ana had a *ebal agee3ent that the$ 5ill be gi*en until Octobe !D( "99# to edee3 the said tic$cle o else total pe3anent epossession 5ill ta6e place- &o5e*e( Lacsa3ana again failed to pa$ Aticle !.8. of the Ci*il Code e2plicitl$ po*ides4 A%T. (*(. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may e5ercise any of the followin remedies6
!/ 75act fulfillment of the obliation, should the vende e fail to pay8 !/ 1ancel the sale, should the vendees failure to pay cover two or more installments8 !/ 9oreclose the chattel mortae or the thin sold, if one has been constituted, should the vendees failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no further action aainst the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any areement to the contrary shall be void.
The afoe?uoted po*ision is clea and si3ple4 should the *endee o puchase of a pesonal popet$ default in the pa$3ent of t5o o 3oe of the ageed install3ents( the *endo o selle has the option to a*ail of an$ one of these thee e3edies eithe to e2act fulfill3ent b$ the puchase of the obligation( o to cancel the sale( o to foeclose the 3otgage on the puchased pesonal popet$( if one 5as constitutedThese e3edies ha*e been ecognied as altenati*e( not cu3ulati*e( that the e2ecise of one 5ould ba the e2ecise of the odes- It 3a$ also be stated that the established ule is to the effect that the foeclosue and actual sale of a 3otgage chattel bas futhe eco*e$ b$ the *endo of an$ balance on the puchases outstanding obligation not so satisfied b$ the sale- :Cu *- %I%C( G-R- No- L)".DD"- ,a$ "D( !7F8; And the eason fo this doctine 5as aptl$ stated in the case of Bachach ,oto Co- *- ,illan( thus ":ndoubtedly the principal ob0ect of the above amendment was to remedy the abuses committed in connection with the foreclosure of chattel mortaes. This amendment prevents mortaees from sei2in the mortaed property, buyin it at foreclosure sale for a low price and then brinin suit aainst the mortaor for a deficiency 0udment. The almost invariable result of this procedure was that the mortaor found himself minus the property and still owin practically the full amount of his oriinal indebtedness. :nder this amendment the vendor of personal property, the purchase price of which is payable in installments, has the riht to cancel the sale or foreclose the mortae if one has been iven on the property. ;hichever riht the vendor elects he need not return to the purchaser the amount of the installments already paid, hil. ()/
Initiati*el$( it is clea that the B1C chooses the fist option- It did not elect to cancel the sale o esot to a foeclosue of the chattel 3otgage- &o5e*e( the subse?uent acts pefo3ed b$ the copoation ae 5holl$ inconsistent 5ith the fist e3ed$- If the fist e3ed$ is a*ailed of( the unpaid selle cannot an$3oe choose othe e3edies( unless the fist e3ed$ beco3es i3possible- B1C should ha*e accepted the pa$3ent 3ade b$ Lacsa3ana o if the latte efused to pa$( B1C should ha*e filed a co3plaint befoe the cout fo collection 5ith a pa$e fo the issuance of a 5it of peli3ina$ attach3ent- Ne*etheless( conta$ to At- !.8.( B1C chooses escission e*en if specific pefo3ance 5as not totall$ i3possible- The cancellation of the sale 5as also conta$ to la5- Thee 5as no notice of escission sent and pope action fo escission filed befoe the CoutB1Cs act could not ha*e been constituted as a foeclosue of the Chattel ,otgage since the popeties 5ee not sold in a public action( athe the popeties 5ee ta6en b$ B1C itself( 5hich is *oid being conta$ to Aticle "988 NCC( 5hich pohibits the e2ecution of a Pactu3 Co33isoiu3 bet5een the paties-
>&ERE%ORE( defendant Ta6ad espectfull$ pa$s the Cout to ende @udg3ent4 !- Ac?uitting the accused and absol*ing hi3 of all chages fo failue to po*e his guilt be$ond easonable doubt "- Odeing the plaintiff to pa$ the defendant 3oal and e2e3pla$ da3ages in the a3ount of P"99(999 and attone$s fees in the a3ount of P"99(999 as 5ell as othe da3ages the Cout 3a$ dee3 necessa$
