ESTERIA, MARIANNE ANGELINE S.

1Q

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
BRANCH 123
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - Crim. Case No. 12345-H

Violation of R.A. 6539
ROMULO TAKAD, (Anti-Carnapping Act)
Accused.

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

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel,

unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Memorandum
in the above-entitled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Zeny Aguirre, the duly authorized representative of Bayan

Development Corporation (BDC), filed a case against the defendant,
Romulo Takad (Takad), in violation of R.A. No. 6539, or known as
Anti-Carnapping Act.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On May 2003, Bayan Development Corporation, through its

Account Officer Zeny Aguirre, extended a group loan to
SCCPPTODA 2 amounting to P480, 000.00. The evidence of
the loan is enclosed in the promissory note, the chattel
mortgage, and the Kasunduan. One of the borrowers was Ma.
Teresa Lacsama (Lacsamana) who was able to get a share of
P80, 000.00.
2. After granting the loan, BDC released the tricycle to
Lacsamana. It is when Aguirre met Takad, who went to
accompany Lacsamana in acquiring the tricycle.
3. The Official Receipt and the Car Registration of the tricycle
were named and registered under Lacsamana.
4. The paying period of the loan is 30 months and within its span,
Lacsamana sometimes failed to pay. She defaulted her loan on
July 2007 that is why BDC had to pullout the tricycle from her
on October 2, 2007 based on what was agreed upon by the
parties under the Kasunduan. They gave the tricycle to the
treasurer of the group for him to manage for the meantime.
 5. Aguirre agreed to give Lacsamana until October 17 to redeem
the tricycle or else they will permanently repossess the said
unit.
6. Lacsamana did not meet the deadline and when she and Takad
went back to BDC’s office in order to pay the outstanding
balance, they were not allowed to do so. After shutting down
their request, Takad allegedly said, “Huwag na huwag kong
makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.”
7. BDC kept the tricycle in their custody until November 20
wherein they gave the unit to its new assignee, Carlo Parlade.
8. At around 1AM of November 21, the tricycle, located 5 meters
away from Parlade’s house, was carnapped. Parlade shouted
at the carnapper who turned his face on him that is why he was
able to have a look on the carnapper’s face with the help of the
street light. He was not able to chase after the carnapper
because of the speed of the tricycle.
9. Mario Mankas (Mankas), who happened to be around the
scene, was able to have a glance of the carnapper. Though, he
was not able to see him properly given he had his head bowed
down. He was still able to identify the carnapper through his
body built.
10. On the same day, Parlade informed BDC, through Aguirre,
about the incident of carnapping. Parlade, Aguirre, and, Mankas
went to the police station in order to give their statements.
11. Takad was arrested and was positively identified by Parlade
and Mankas as the carnapper. Takad claimed otherwise, he
was saying that it is impossible for him to carnap the tricycle
since he was just asleep in his house the whole time the crime
was committed.

ISSUE

I. Whether or not Romulo Takad violated R.A. No. 6539 or also

known as Anti-Carnapping Act.

ARGUMENTS

1. Based from the facts, it was established that Ma. Teresa

Lacsama is the owner of the tricycle. The Official Receipt and
Car Registration were named and registered under her name.

Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539 defined 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.”1

1 R.A. No. 6539, Sec. 2.

2
 Takad cannot be said to be taking a motor vehicle belonging to
another person. As stated in the Family Code of the Philippines,

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are

capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with
each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and
the property acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties

acquired while they lived together shall be presumed
to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry, and shall be owned by them in equal
shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did
not participate in the acquisition by the other party of
any property shall be deemed to have contributed
jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household. (Emphasis supplied)

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter

vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during
cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent
of the other, until after the termination of their
cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in

good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-
ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common
children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of
the common children or their descendants, each vacant
share shall belong to the respective surviving
descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share
shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the
cohabitation. (144a)2

Even if the O.R. No. and Car registration of the tricycle is solely
named after Lacsamana, invoking Art. 147 of the Family Code,
Takad, being the common-law husband of Lacsamana, is also the
rightful and lawful co-owner of the tricycle. Takad did not commit the
crime of carnapping because he did not take, with intent to gain, the
motor vehicle which belongs to another person. The motor vehicle did
not belong to Parlade nor did it belong to BDC. During the cross-
examination, it was established that BDC did not make any move to

2 Family Code of the Philippines, Art. 147.

3
transfer the ownership of the tricycle under their name. They did not
take the matter of repossession into court, so in the eyes of court, it is
still Lacsamana who is the rightful and lawful owner of the tricycle.

2. The burden of proof in proving Takad’s guilt and liability lies on the
prosecution. However, the prosecution was not able to establish proof
beyond reasonable doubt. All the evidences they presented were all
allegations and assumptions. Parlade and Mankas’ statements in
their affidavit and during the cross-examination were not that
consistent. There were inconsistencies as to how they described the
culprit when the crime was committed and during cross-examination.

Takad’s intent to carnap the tricycle was also not established

beyond reasonable doubt. While they were in BDC’s office, Takad
allegedly said “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa
Pasig.” the prosecution automatically assumed that Takad threatened
to steal the tricycle with that statement. However, that statement may
have different meanings and it was not directly indicated in that
statement that Takad planned on stealing the tricycle if he is going to
see it in Pasig. The prosecution was also not able to locate the
tricycle and did not give evidences that Takad was in possession of it.

PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for

that the judgment be rendered in favor of the defendant. The
defendant must be acquitted of the crime of carnapping given that the
prosecution was not able to prove the defendant’s liability beyond
reasonable doubt.

Respectfully submitted. Pasig City, 30 January 2008.

ATTY. MARIANNE ANGELINE S. ESTERIA

Counsel for the Defendant
EGI Taft Tower, Taft Ave., Malate, Manila
IBP No. 501970
PTR No. 791050
MCLE Compliance No. III – 110500