BDC extended a loan to SSCCPPTODA 2 worth P480, 000.00, the share of Ms Teresa Lacsama is worth P80,000.

00, the loan has to be paid a regular installments. The money loaned was used to buy a tricycle. Ms. Lacsamana was granted the Certificate of Registration of a tricycle in her name. However, Ms. Lacsamana failed to comply with the paying period, her last payment, according to Zenny Aguire, the representative of BDC, was on July 2003. As to the agreement or contract of BDC and SSCCPPTODA 2, BDC pulled out the tricycle, on 2 October 2003, and gave it to the treasurer of the group, Mr. Recardo Marasigan, for him to manage. Ms. Aguirre agreed with Ms. Lacsamana for extension and gave her until October 17 to redeem the tricycle and if not they will permanently repossess the tricycle. However, Ms. Lacsamana failed, again, to comply. Then, on October 18 BDC took the tricycle from the treasurer of the group. In Ms. Aguirres testimony she stated that, on October 22, Ms. Lacsamana together with Mr. Romulo Takad went to BDC to pay the outstanding balance and pleaded for the release of the tricycle, but the BDC did now allow it anymore. And she also said that Mr. Takad told her that Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig. BDC kept the tricycle for a while until November 20, when they gave the tricycle to new assignee named Carlos Parlade who resides in Maybunga, Pasig City. Unfortunately, according to Mr. Parlade, on November 21, at 1:00 oclock in the morning the tricycle was stolen near his house. Mr. Parlade and another witness named Mario S. Mankas, alleged that they saw who drove the tricycle away. And they both pointed out Mr. Romulo Takad. And Ms. Aguirre when informed by Mr. Parlada she immediately thought that it was Mr. Takad who stole the tricycle because of what he told her at the office. Mr. Parlada spent the whole morning searching for the tricycle but it was negative. On the same day they reported the incident to the police.

The Issue Whether or not Romulo Takad stole the subject tricycle and thereby violated R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act).

Arguments Romulo Takad had stolen the tricycle and violated RA 6539

Carnapping was discussed in the case of People v Arguelles, G.R. No.172604, the court held that: Likewise, we agree that Roxas is also guilty of violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law. R.A. 6539, otherwise known as An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping , defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without t he latters consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things . More specifically, the elements of the crime are as follows: 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; 2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle; 3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; 4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The first element is present when he took the tricycle, and it was established when Mr. Parlade and Mr. Mankas testified against Takad. The 2nd element with intent to gain was back up by his spoken words to Ms. Aguirre when he and Ms. Lacsamana pleaded to BDC to redeem the tricycle. He told Ms. Aguirre, Huwag na huwag kong makikita ang tricycle sa Pasig and these words was denied by Mr. Takad. He has clear intention of regaining the tricycle he said that his feeling was hurt when the tricycle was taken away from Ms. Lacsamana. The 3rd element is that the vehicle should belong to someone else, the tricycle at the commission of the crime already belongs to Mr. Parlade, being the new assignee, Takad took it for revenge to BDC from taking the tricycle away from Ms. Lacsamana. The last element is be taken without consent, and the commission of the offense was attended by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, when probably everyone was already resting and sleeping.

Alibi of Takad Takad in his crossexamination was asked how long was his ho use from the incident of the crime, he said that it is quite far and then when he was asked if there is an available public transportation running the route on a 24 hour basis he answered in the affirmative. In the case People v Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, the court held that:
It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only be at some other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. It is not physically impossible for him to be at scene of the crime given that there is an available public transportation running the route, from his house and the house of Mr. Parlade, on a 24 hours basis. BDC is entitled to regain the tricycle F