Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial court

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. 12345-H
-versus- Violation of R.A. 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act)
ROMULO TAKAD,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

DEFENDANT’S TRIAL MEMORANDUM

The Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum to
this Honorable Court, as follows:

THE CASE
The prosecution charged the defendant, Romulo Takad, with the crime
of violation of R.A. 6539 for taking a motorcycle with sidecar (tricycle) as
believed belong to Bayan Development Corporation (BDC) which reassigned
said tricycle to Carlos Parlade when the original assignee, the accused’s live-
in partner, Teresa Lacsamana defaulted on her installment payments. The
accused through counsel denied the charge against him.

THE FACTS

In 19 March 2003, Maria Teresa Lacsamana (Lacsamana for brevity),

a member of Sakabayan and Tricycle Operators and Driver Association
(SCCPTODA), signed a “Kasunduan” 12 granting her a share loan of ₱ 80,000
from a group loan of SCCPTODA 2 (Samahan) amounted to ₱ 480,000. The
“Kasunduan” was signed by the Senior Account Officer of Bayan
Development Corporation (BDC), Zenny G. Aguirre (Aguirre). The BDC was
engage in business in extending loans to Sakbayan members and the members
of Tricylce Operators and Driver Association3.

1
Exhibit “A”, TSN, 7 January 2004, p3; See Appendix A, p254
2
TSN, 7 January 2003, p3; See Appendix A, p254
3
Supra, p2; See Appendix A, p253
 Accordingly to the “Kasunduan” the loan will use for buying new
motor and sidecar4. In case of default payment, BDC as a creditor, will pull
out the motor of the member whose failed to comply to the its obligation5.

Lacsamana executed a promissory note and chattel mortgage and

thereafter claimed a tricycle, with the accused Romulo Takad, from BDC,
which Lacsamana name is under the Official Reciept6 and the Car
Registration7 of the tricycle.

On July 2003, Lacsamana defaulted on her installment. On October 2

in the same year, the tricycle place under the custody of the Samahan’s
treasurer, Ricardo Marasigan. In the meantime, Aguirre agreed to extend
Lacsamana’s payment deadline to October 17, 20038. Lacsamana produced
only ₱ 14,000 after she mortgage her car. Lacsamana and Takad arrived in
BDC office to pay the outstanding balance but the came late and it was already
close9. On October 18, Lacsamana and Takad, went to BDC office to settle
the balance of their loan, but Aguirre did not allow him to pay their obligation.

The tricycle was reassigned to Carlos Parlade no later than November

20, 2007. Unfortunately, said tricycle was stolen from his residence at one
o’clock in the morning of November 21, 2003. He and Mario Mankas
witnessed that the accused Takad driving off with his tricycle. Parlade then
informed Aguirre of the carnapping that same day.

ABSTRACTS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

As and by way of testimonial evidence, the prosecution presented three (3)

witnesses, as testified by:

1. Zenny Aguirre – 33-year old, account officer of BDC, and lived at 54

Helena St., Tanza Village, Marikina. She has been an employee of BDC for
12 years, and handled the 30-months loan payable account of Lacsamana.

Aguirre alleged that when Lacsamana defaulted on her payments in

July 2003, BDC pulled out the tricycle from her residence on October 2, 2003,
since the Kasunduan provided for such, in the event of default in payments10.

4
Exhibit A, paragraph 1.2; See Appendix A, p287.
5
Supra Note 3, p3; See Appendix A, p254; Exhibit A, paragraph 15.1; See Appendix A, p290.
6
Exhibit B, TSN, 7 January 2004, p4; See Appendix A, p255.
7
Exhibit B-1, TSN, 7 January 2004, p4; See Appendix A, p255.
8
Supra Note 5, p4; See Appendix A, p255.
9
TSN, 12 March 2004, p3, See Appendix A, p279; TSN, 12 March 2004, p9; See Appendix A, p285.
10
Supra Note 8, p3; See Appendix A, p254.
 Aguirre further alleged that Lacsamana only provided the payment on
October 22, 2003 when the agreed deadline was October 17, 200311. Aguirre’s
boss then ordered her not to accept the late payment12, which led to Takad’s
threat of “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.”1314 After
which, until 20 November 2003, the tricycle was reassigned to Carlos Parlade
on 21 November 200315.

Aguirre also narrated that Parlade called her at one o’clock in the
morning of November 21, 2007 to inform her that his tricycle was stolen from
his residence16.

2. Carlos Parlade – 50-year old, married, construction worker, and

resided at 84 West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City. He was also a member of the
Maybunga Security Force.

Parlade narrated that on November 21, 2003 at one o’clock in the

morning, he had just returned home. When he exited his house again to chain-
up his tricycle, newly assigned to him by BDC, saw a person pushing his
tricycle down the street. He shouted at the person, “Hoy, bat dala-dala mo
iyang motor.” The intruder turned at the shout, kick-started the engine, and
drove away. He then ran after the tricycle to catch it up but was unsuccessful.17

Parlade alleged that when the intruder turned at his shout, he recognized
Takad. He then informed Aguirre of the robbery and they spent the early
morning hours looking for the stolen tricycle. Parlade reported the robbery at
one-thirty in the afternoon of the same day, and executed a sworn statement,
as well. He returned to the police station at five-thirty in the afternoon, to
identify the arrested Takad.

3. Mario Mankas – 19-year old, jobless neighbor of Parlade, and lived at

66 West Road, Maybunga, Pasig City.

Mankas recounted that at two o’clock in the morning of November 21,

2007, he washed his hands by a neighbor’s front gate after playing computer
games, and saw Parlade running after a tricycle. He alleged that he recognized
Takad as the tricycle passed in front of him. He then decided to chase after
both Parlade and the tricycle driver. At four o’clock in the afternoon, Parlade

11
Supra, p4; See Appendix A, p255.
12
Supra, p10; See Appendix A, p261.
13
Supra, p4; See Appendix A, p255.
14
Supra, p10; See Appendix A, p261.
15
Supra, p5; See Appendix A, p256.
16
Supra.
17
TSN, 27 January 2004, pp1-3; See Appendix A, p262-264.
accompanied Mankas to the police station to give a sworn statement and
identify Takad18.

ABSTRACTS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENSE

WITNESSES

The accused’s evidence on the other hand consisted mostly of alibi and
denials, and presented two (2) witnesses, as testified by:

1. Romulo Takad – 43-year old, married, live-in partner of Lacsamana,

and resided at 374 Villa Street, Palatiw, Pasig City. He drove the tricycle for
Lacsamana.

Takad admitted that Lacsamana defaulted on her installment payments

and so, they brought the tricycle to Treasurer Marasigan’s residence for
custody19.

Takad recounted further that Aguirre pulled out the tricycle from
Marasigan on October 18, 2007 when Lacsamana was unable to provide
payment to the agreed-upon extension of October 17. They then went to
BDC’s offices to pay the arrears but Aguirre informed them that the company
would no longer accept the late payment. Aguirre also revealed to them that
due to the default, the company inferred that they had no means to pay for
further installments20.

Takad contended that he pleaded with Aguirre that he hoped not to see the
said tricycle in Pasig as it would pain him and Lacsamana. He also alleged
that he was alone at home, sleeping, in the early morning of November 21,
2003, and added that Lacsamana was in Singapore, then. The police awakened
him when they arrived to arrest him21.

2. Maria Teresa Lacsamana – 33-year old, single, business-woman,

live-in partner to Takad, and resided at 374 Villa Street, Palatiw, Pasig City.

Lacsamana admitted that she defaulted on her payments for fifteen

22
days . She further related that Aguirre pulled out the tricycle and they both
surrendered it to Treasurer Marasigan’s custody. She also added that Aguirre
agreed to extend the deadline for payment to October 17, 2003, but disclosed
that she was unable to meet it because she had to mortgage her car first, for

18
TSN, 19 February 2004, pp1-8; See Appendix A, pp270-277.
19
TSN, 12 March 2004, p2; See Appendix A, p278.
20
Supra, p3-4; See Appendix A, p27-280.
21
Supra, p5-6; See Appendix A, p281-282.
22
Supra, p9; See Appendix A, p285.
Php 100, 000.00. She only produced the Php 14, 000.00 due, on October 18
which Aguirre did not accept, and only declared that if she was given another
chance she might still be unable to pay the balance. She further recalled that
Takad, who accompanied her then, stated that he hoped not to see the said
tricycle in Pasig since they could not redeem it.

Lacsamana confirmed that she was in Singapore from November 16 to

December 14, 2003.

ISSUE/S AND/OR GROUND/S

I. Whether or not the accused Romulo Takad is not guilty of

violation of 8539, the Anti-Carnapping Act.
II. Whether or not the Kasunduan or Chatlle Mortgage made by
Samahan and BDC is prohibited by law.

DISCUSSIONS/AGRUMENTS

TAKAD IS NOT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF 8539, THE ANTI-

CARNAPPING ACT.

The elements of Carnapping as defined under Section 2 of R.A. No.

6539 are,

(1) The taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another;

(2) The taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of

violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon
things; and

(3) The taking is done with intent to gain.

The abovementioned elements must be established by the prosecutor to

say the omission of carnapping was done and to say that the accused is guilty
for the violation of RA 6539, anti-carnapping Act.

It must be clear that the possessor of the property was deemed to be its
owner for the establishing carnapping and robbery, in general. Herein case,
the prosecutor failed to established the ownership of the subject vehicle, as
BDC reassigned the tricycle to Carlos Parlade, which in fact the owner of the
tricycle was Lacsamana. The ownership of tricycle by Lacsamana was
supported by the Official receipt and Car registration of tricycle, marked as
Exhibit B and B-1 by the prosecutor23.

The BDC, in capability of Aguirre, did not constitute a process of

transferring of ownership. She, Aguirre, depends on the condition of chattel
mortgage which in case of default payment, the property will automatically
own by BDC. In cross examination, Aguirre stated that she not get any court
order transferring ownership of tricycle from Lacsamana to BDC before
taking the tricycle or any authorization from court granting her to take the
tricycle24.

“Wag na wag kong makikita anf tricycle na’yan sa Pasig” pleaded by

Takad did not constitute an idea or intention of carnapping a tricycle. In his
testimony, he said that it will hurt his feeling when he see the tricycle around
Pasig as well the feelings of his live-in partner Lacsamana.

Takad had a full ownership of tricycle as he was living with Lacsamana.

Even they are in live-in relationship or so called, common law-relationship,
the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be
governed by the rules on co-ownership25. It’s clear that Takad, as co-owner of
tricycle has a same right of the owner.

THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE IS NULL AND VOID

The chattel mortgage done by BDC and Samahan was null and void
according to law.

In “Kasunduan” paragraph 15.1 states that “15.1 Kapag ang isang

kasapi ay hindi makabigay ng tatalong karampatang arawang hulog-bayad
sa loob g isang kinsenas o napapaloob sa isang tseke sa BDC, ang kanyang
tricycle ay hahatakin ng SAMAHAN kasama ang linya (TODA) at o prangkisa
at ito ay pangangasiwaan ng SAMAHn upang ang arawang kita nito ay
tuwitang gagamitin ng SAMAHAN par sa darating na arawang hulog-bayad
ng kasaping nagkasala;” and the testimony of Aguirre that their basis of
pulling the tricycle was the “Kasunduan” of SAMAHAN26

Its daylight clear that the BDC and SAMAHAN committed Pactum
Commissorium, which prohibited by law27. The act of BDC and SAMAHAN

23
TSN, 7 January 2004, p3; See Appendix A, p 255.
24
Supra, p7; See Appendix A p258.
25
Article 147, Family Code.
26
TSN. 7 January 2004, p3; See Appendix A, p254.
27
Article 2088, NCC.
to automatic appropriation of object or property of Lacsamana constitute a
pactum commissorium.

The two element or requiste for Pactum Commissorium to exist are:

First. There should be a pledge, mortgage, or antichresis of property by

way of security for the payment of the principal obligation; and

Herein case, the mortgage of property for security of payment of

principal obligation was the tricycle of Lacsamana and Takad.

Second. There should be a stipulation for an automatic appropriation

by the creditor of the property on the event of nonpayment of the obligation
within the stipulated period

The “Kasunduan” of SAMAHAN, is the stipulation of BDC,

SAMAHAN, Lacsamana and Takad. The act of pulling out the tricycle of
Lacsamana and Takad done by BDC was illegal at the first place.

CLOSING STATEMENT

The defense humbly stated and took the position that it has
presented competent witnesses, clear, convincing and sufficient evidence to
prove that Takad was not guilty of committing the crime charged.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defense respectfully prays that a Decision be

rendered finding the Accused Romulo Takad not guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of CARNAPPING penalized under Republic Act No.
6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Act, and not be adjudged civilly liable to
indemnify the concerned parties.

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

[Explanation: A copy of this memorandum has been served on the

adverse party by registered mail in view of the distance and the absence of a
messenger who could make a personal service.]
 Caloocan City for the City of Manila, 28 July 2005

JOSHUA JOSEPH MARK RAMOS

Counsel for the petitioner
441 – A Kabatuhan Road, Deparo,
Caloocan City
Tel./Fax No. 913-5635
PTR. NO. 3804013; 01-04-17; Q.C.
IBP NO. 1056135; 01-04-17; Q.C.
ROLL NO. 65855
MCLE (Not applicable; Admitted 21
June 2004)

Copy Furnished :
Isidro T. De Leon
Prosecutor II