Romulo Takad (1aa)

3328 Words14 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…
Yes or No? And that then follows that both witnesses should not be expected full recollections of specifics with precision pertaining to the details of the crime? INTENT TO GAIN- PROSECUTION Intent to gain is present on the part of accused Takad. In criminal law, it is well settled that the presence of intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of a property belonging to another. The burden of evidence lies with the defense and they have significantly failed to establish any. In this case, intent to gain is present even without the confession of the accused because in the absence of such confession, the rule states that it must be deduced from the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. Hence, there is intent to gain on the part of the accused Takad as strongly established by the threat that Takad said after BDC refused redemption of the tricycle. Accused Takad threatened Aguirre with the words, “Wag na wag kong makikita ang tricycle na ‘yan sa Pasig”. This threat by accused evidently supports the presence of intent to gain on his part. Human experience dictates that once a person loses a property, he used to earn for a living, such person would not simply and only feel sad. Common understanding implies that losing such important property , an investment perhaps, would cause aggravation in the feelings of that person. The threat by Takad cannot simply be a plead to BDC for such

    More about Romulo Takad (1aa)

      Open Document