REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
-vesus- Crim. Case No. 12345-H
Violation of R.A. 6539
Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:
The prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act) by alledging that the accused, with intent to gain and without the 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 a value of P80,000.00 belonging to Bayan Development Corporation, represented by Zenny Aguirre, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. Romulo Takad, accused, denied this charge on his testimonies. The accused opted not to avail of his right to a preliminary investigation and not having executed a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
On March 2003, a KASUNDUAN was made between BAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SCCPPTODA 2 (SAMAHAN). Pursuant to the Kasunduan, a loan to be paid in regular installments amounting to P80,000.00 was extended to Ma. Teresa Lacsamana on May 2003 and such must be used to buy a tricyle which the former did and was actually granted the Certificate of Registration of a tricycle in her name. Lacsamana defaulted and her last payment as testified by Zenny Aguirre, the account officer of the BDC, was on July 2003. As stipulated and agreed upon by the parties in the Kasunduan, BDC pulled out the tricycle on October 2, 2003 due to default in payment by Lacsamana and was then given under the custody of the treasurer of the SAMAHAN, Ricardo Marasigan for management. Lacsamana, together with her live-in partner Romulo Takad, pleaded with Aguirre of BDC to pay the balance in order to redeem the tricycle and they were given a due date of October 17, 2003. However, the two weren`t able to appear on the agreed date, and as a result, BDC got the tricycle from Marasigan to permanently repossess the same on October 18, 2003. In Aguirre`s testimony she alledged that Lacsamana and Takad pleaded on October 22 of the same year to once again redeem the subject tricycle but the former refused as instructed by her boss. It was on the said date that Takad has spoken the statement “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig.”
According to Aguirre, the subject tricycle remained in the possession of BDC until it was given to the new assignee in the name of Carlos Parlade on Novemeber 20, 2003. The following day, at 1:00 in the morning, the said tricycle was stolen near the house of Parlade as alledged by him and the other witnesses Aguirre who was then communicated into by the former after the incident, and Mario Mankas who alledged that he actually saw the incident. Romulo Takad was pointed out the accused common to all three witnesses. Parlade and Mankas claimed recognition of Takad as the one who drove the tricycle away from the place of the said carnapping while Aguirre claimed suspicion because of the statement Takad has spoken on October 22, 2003 saying “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig” when the former refused the redemption of the tricycle.
The underlying issue in this case is whether or not Romulo Takad stole the subject tricycle thereby commiting the crime of violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act).
I. THE STATEMENT IMPUTED BY TAKAD TO AGUIRRE HAS NO SHOWING THAT HE DID SO MALICIOUSLY AND IN BAD FAITH.
The statement spoken by Takad “Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig” when they were refused of the chance to redeem the tricycle...