REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR QUEZON CITY Name of the Complainant, Complainant, -versus- Case Number For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Multiple Physical Injuries Name of the Respondent, Respondent. x---------------------------------------------x COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT I, Name of the Respondent, Filipino, of legal age, with postal address at 115 V.A. Rufino Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City, after being sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that: 1. I am the respondent (hereafter referred to as “Respondent”) in this case for alleged commission of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Multiple Physical Injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. The complaint is in connection with the injuries sustained by name of the complainant (hereafter referred to as “Complainant”), resulting from an accident that happened at around 3:30 am, on June 12, 2015, along East Ave., Quezon City. 3. The complainant failed to establish all the elements of the crimes of Reckless Imprudence as provided for by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. – xxx Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily. 9. On June 12. at around 3:30 in the morning. Before this case was filed.2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. Reckless imprudence is defined as follows: “Art. degree of intelligence. 365. 6. I have tried to stop the vehicle but it was already too late as the complainant was already in front of me. Quezon City. I immediately brought the complainant to East Avenue Medical Center. 5. The complainant slammed in my windshield as a result of the impact. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. headed towards EDSA. Imprudence and negligence. 10. the complainant’s sister and I agreed that I will just take care of her medical expenses and that she will not file a case against me. doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. The said agreement is hereto attached as Annex 1. The complainant fatally failed to establish all the elements of Reckless Imprudence as defined under Article 365. . I honestly believe that this case filed against me must be dismissed based on the following discussions: The complainant failed to establish all the elements of the crime of Reckless Imprudence defined under Article 365 of the RPC. but without malice. 8. 7. I was driving along East Avenue. 2015. As I was approaching BIR Road. I was surprised when the complainant suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle that I am driving. In the instant case. 1997 Annex 2 . the TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT2 would immediately show that the complainant was not in the PEDESTRIAN LANE when she crossed the road. Court of Appeals1. time and place. there was no finding that the I failed to exercise the necessary precaution in driving the vehicle. to wit: “The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act. November 18. As a matter of fact. 1 2 G. Hence. The purpose of the said lane is to give warning or precaution to drivers that they have to be observant of possible pedestrians crossing the said lane. physical condition. (3) that it be without malice. the complainant’s act of crossing the street outside the designated area was the very reason why she was hit by the respondent. Corollary. (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary.3 physical condition and other regarding persons.R. Hence. the injuries that the respondent sustained could only be faulted to her. 14. and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender. (Emphasis supplied) circumstances xxx” 11. In Cruz vs. it is essential that there must have been an act that was done with inexcusable lack of precaution. Besides. The fact that she did not cross at the pedestrian lane is determinative of who is at fault for the injuries that she sustained. time and place. No. 122445. degree of intelligence. taking into consideration his employment or occupation.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Judicial notice may be taken that the designated area where a pedestrian may cross is the pedestrial lane. In order for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Multiple Physical Injuries. the Supreme Court enumerated the elements of Reckless Imprudence. 13. the greenlight was “on” when I accidentally hit her. (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence. and other circumstances regarding persons. one of the essential elements of Reckless Imprudence is lacking. The vehicle might be “rumaragasa” for her but the truth is. From the above discussion. the evidence presented cannot engender a well-founded belief that I drove recklessly and that I was imprudent in driving my vehicle. The evidence submitted does not meet the required quantum of evidence by law to establish a prima facie case 17. Also. Additionally. the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to "engender a well founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. I was not overspeeding nor was violating any traffic rules when I hit the complainant. it is clear that I did not lack precaution in driving my vehicle. even assuming for the sake of argument but without admitting that I was “rumaragasa” as claimed by the complainant. Hence. 96080 April 19. Paderanga vs Hon. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence. Miguel P. I was driving within the speed limit. Complainant’s claim in her SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY3 that I am “rumaragasa” was just a self-serving statement.4 15. what has just been presented to this Honorable Office is a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT which did not provide any information that would show that I drove the car recklessly. her injuries cannot be faulted to me as she crossed the street while the 3 4 Annex 3 Atty.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the instant case. No. the term “rumaragasa” is relative. Franklin M. She crossed the street while the greenlight is “on” and clearly. 1991 . It is also noteworthy that that there was no report that the I was overspeeding nor was violating any traffic rules at the time the accident happened. Drilon. G. 16.R. she took the risk of crossing the street even though vehicles are flowing in East Avenue. 19. it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a wen grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In Paderanga vs Drilon4 . 2007 . Philippines. and am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood this Counter-Affidavit. I respectfully submit that the only course open for this Honorable Office is to dismiss the complaint against me. for the rule is that “when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained. Corollary. Name of Prosecutor Assistant CITY Prosecutor 5 Rodolfo S. I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of October 2015 in Quezon City. the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial.5 greenlight is “on”. it is respectfully implored that this Honorable Office forthwith dismiss the instant Complaint for lack of factual and legal basis. the injuries that she sustained can only be attributed to the fact that she crossed the street while the greenlight is “on” and to the fact that she did not cross the street at the proper pedestrian lane. in Quezon City. de Jesus vs Hon. I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant. The complainant herself also admitted that she was not in the designated area when she crossed the street. 164166 & 164173-80 October 17. From the avobe discussion.” 5 (Emphasis ours) 21. 22. 20. G.R. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. ________________________ Name of the Respondent PROSECUTOR’S CERTIFICATION SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 2nd day of October 2015. I have caused the execution of the foregoing affidavit and do hereby to attest to the truth of the declarations herein. With all the foregoing. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Nos.