Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
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
FOR THE ACCUSED

Accused, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in

the case:

The Case

The prosecution charged Romulo Takad with the crime of

violation of R.A. 10883 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016) for taking a
motorcycle with sidecar (tricycle), belonging 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. Takad denied the
charge against him.

The Facts

In May 2007, Zenny Aguirre, account officer and representative

of BDC granted a group loan to SCCPPTODA 2 (Samahan) which
Teresa Lacsamana was part of. The Kasunduan embodied the terms

1|Page
and conditions of the loan between BDC and the Samahan. The group
loan totaled Php 480, 000.00 and Lacsamana received
Php 80, 000.00 as her share.

Lacsamana executed a promissory note and chattel mortgage

and thereafter claimed a tricycle, with the accused Romulo Takad,
from BDC.

In July 2007, Lacsamana defaulted on her installment

payments which consigned the tricycle in the custody of the
Samahan’s treasurer, Ricardo Marasigan, on October 2, 2007. In the
meantime, Aguirre agreed to extend Lacsamana’s payment deadline
to October 17, 2007. However, Lacsamana and Takad only produced
the amount of Php 14, 000.00 past the deadline, which Aguirre then
refused to accept.

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, 2007. He
and Mario Mankas witnessed Takad driving off with his tricycle.
Parlade then informed Aguirre of the carnapping that same day.

The police arrested Takad and brought him to the police station
on November 21, 2007.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not BGC Corporation owns the tricycle.

2. Whether or Not Romulo Takad is guilty for violation of R.A

6539

2|Page
 ARGUMENTS

I
BGC CORPORATION DOES NOT OWN THE TRICYCLE. MS.
LACSAMANA IS THE OWNER OF THE TRICYCLE.

Here is the TSN of the cross-examination conducted by Atty.

Cruz the former counsel of the accused to Ms. Zenny Aguirre, the
account officer of BDC Corporation, the portion is as follows:
Atty. Cruz: Did you get a court order transferring ownership
of the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana to BGC Corporation before
you took the tricycle?
Zenny Aguirre: No, sir.
Atty. Cruz: Did you get a court order authorizing you to take
the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana?
Zenny Aguirre: no, sir
Atty. Cruz: You took it from her because she could not pay
her debt, right?
Zenny Aguirre: Yes, sir.
Atty. Cruz: Did you make an effort to buy the tricycle from
Ms. Lacsamana before it was stolen?
Zenny Aguirre: No, sir.
Atty. Cruz: it is your understanding that when she did not pay
her debt, the ownership of the tricycle is automatically
transferred to BDC, is that right?
Zenny Aguirre: No, sir, since she had not paid her obligation,
BDC owns the tricycle.
Atty. Cruz: Let us make it clear, you said that BDC loaned Ms.
Lacsamana the money, which she used to buy the tricycle; it
was not BDC that brought the tricycle, it was Ms. Lacsamana
who brought the tricycle?
Zenny Aguirre: Yes, sir

3|Page
 Atty. Cruz: Who is the owner of the tricycle?
Zenny Aguirre: Ma. Teresa Lacsamana is the owner of the
tricycle. But the money used in buying the tricycle was
the money of BDC.

The money used to buy the tricycle was the group loan
obtained from BDC Corporation by SCCPPTODA which Ms.
Lacsamana is a member. The loan agreement between BCD
Corporation and SCCPPTODA was evidenced by the Kasunduan
marked as Exhibit “A”.
It is true that the money used to by the tricycle was the loan
obtained by Ms. Lacsamana from BDC but the tricycle was brought
not by BDC but by Ms Lacsamana. Therefore, the owner of the
tricycle was not BDC Corporation but Ms. Lacsamana. Ms.
Lacsamana will not cease to be the owner of the tricycle by her
failure to comply with her obligations.
According to the Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and
SCCPPTODA which states:

15.1 Kapag ang isang kasapi ay hindi makapagbigay ng tatlong

karampatang arawang hulog-bayad sa loob ng isang kinsenas
o napapaloob sa isang tseke sa BDC, ang kanyang tricycle ay
hahatakin ng SAMAHAN kasama ang linya (TODA) at prangkisa
at ito ay pangangasiwaan ng SAMAHAN para sa darating na
arawang hulog-bayad ng kasaping nagkasala.
15.2 Ang nahatak na tricycle ay mananatili sa pangangasiwa
ng SAMAHAN hangga’t hindi lubos na nababayaran ang nagging
pagkukulang sa SAMAHAN.
15.3. Ang tricycle na mula sa inutang sa BDC ay hindi maaaring
isanla, ibenta o ilipat ng pagmamay-ari hangga’t hindi pa
lubusang nababayaran ang pagkakautang sa BDC.

4|Page
 In pursuant to the Kasunduan, failure of the members of
SAMAHAN to pay their obligations, the tricycle could be pulled out
from the owner and will be under the temporary management of the
treasurer of the SAMAHAN until the obligation are finally settled. The
Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and SCCPPTODA didn’t state
that failure of a member to pay their obligation due would
automatically transfer the ownership of the tricycle to BGC
Corporation.

II
ROMULO TAKAD DID NOT VIOLATE R.A 6539

Section 2 of Republic Act 6539 defined Carnapping as:

Carnapping is 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.

In connection with the definition of Carnapping stated in

Section 2 of Republic Act 6539, Romulo Takad did not commit the
crime of Carnapping because it is the taking with intent to gain; a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent.
Assuming that the said vehicle that was taken away by the defendant,
he cannot be convicted with the crime of Carnapping under Republic
Act 6539 because the tricycle was owned not by BGC Corporation or
Carlos Parlade. The owner of the tricycle is Ms. Lacsamana, the live-
in partner of the defendant.

5|Page
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this

Honorable Court to render judgment:

1. To dismiss the case against the defendant.

Other forms of relief and remedies are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

REALITY MAE S. TABERNERO

Counsel of the Accused
March 20, 2015
PTR No. 111278; 02-29-2015; Quezon City
IBP No. 111444; 02-29-2015; Mandaluyong City
Roll No. 11111
MCLE EXEMPTED
564 Sampaguita St. Ayala Homes
Mandaluyong City
realitytabernero@gmail.com

Copy furnished:

Pros. Bai Sora Lumanog

Prosecutor III
Office of the City Prosecutor
Pasig City

6|Page