Essay on Romulo Takad (1aa)

3350 Words Apr 8th, 2013 14 Pages
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES - PROSECUTION The defense centered its arguments on mere inconsistencies between the sworn statements and testimonies of the witnesses. The arguments raised were speculative rather deliberated, superficial rather substantive and illogical rather rational. The prosecution witnesses have positively, clearly and convincingly identified the accused Romulo Takad as the culprit who took the tricycle, in view of the following reasons:

First, Rule 113, Sec. 2 of the RULES OF EVIDENCE, categorically states that, in a criminal prosecution, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held in People v. Sanchez,
“Sworn statement/affidavits are generally
…show more content…
Without a doubt, such person will have the enthusiasm to take back his property, regardless of the unlawful means.

Undoubtedly, Romulo Takad has the intent to gain by unlawfully taking the tricycle from its new assignee. The prosecution stands on the position that the remark of Takad clearly showed his intent to gain in the crime of carnapping.

QUESTIONS ON INTENT TO GAIN:

1. Do you know that the burden of evidence lies with the defense?

2. Do you know that the evidence you need to prove is the absence of any intention to gain from the commission of the crime? Have you established any proof?

3. So absence of any proof, the presumption of intent to gain will prevail, right?

4. Did it not hurt the accused when the subject motor vehicle was taken from your possession?

5. Are you in the position that when accused said“wag na wag kong makikita yan sa Pasig” he was just at the height of his anger and suddenly these words just came out?

6. Do you agree with me that the statement that he could also be a form of threat which

Related Documents