REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT 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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
4.
On June 12, 2015, at around 3:30 in the morning, I was
driving along East Avenue, Quezon City, headed towards EDSA.
5.
As I was approaching BIR Road, I was surprised when
the complainant suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle that I am
driving. I have tried to stop the vehicle but it was already too late as
the complainant was already in front of me.
6.
The complainant slammed in my windshield as a result of
the impact.
7.
I immediately brought the complainant to East Avenue
Medical Center.
8.
Before this case was filed, the complainants sister and I
agreed that I will just take care of her medical expenses and that she
will not file a case against me. The said agreement is hereto attached
as Annex 1.
9.
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.
10. The complainant fatally failed to establish all the elements
of Reckless Imprudence as defined under Article 365. Reckless
imprudence is defined as follows:
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence.

xxx

Reckless
imprudence
consists
in
voluntarily, but without malice, 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, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,

physical condition and other

regarding persons, time and place.
(Emphasis supplied)

circumstances
xxx

11. In Cruz vs. Court of Appeals1, the Supreme Court

enumerated the elements of Reckless Imprudence, to wit:
The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that
the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that
the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3) that it be without malice; (4) that material
damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
(5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the offender, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence,
physical
condition,
and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In order for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Property with Multiple Physical Injuries, it is essential that there must
have been an act that was done with inexcusable lack of
precaution.
13. In the instant case, there was no finding that the I failed to
exercise the necessary precaution in driving the vehicle. As a matter
of fact, the TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT2 would
immediately show that the complainant was not in the PEDESTRIAN
LANE when she crossed the road. Hence, the injuries that the
respondent sustained could only be faulted to her. Corollary, one of
the essential elements of Reckless Imprudence is lacking.
14. The fact that she did not cross at the pedestrian lane is
determinative of who is at fault for the injuries that she sustained.
Judicial notice may be taken that the designated area where a
pedestrian may cross is the pedestrial lane. 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. Hence, the
complainants act of crossing the street outside the designated area
was the very reason why she was hit by the respondent. Besides, the
greenlight was on when I accidentally hit her.
1
2

G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997

Annex 2

15. 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. Complainants claim in her SINUMPAANG
SALAYSAY3 that I am rumaragasa was just a self-serving
statement. Additionally, the term rumaragasa is relative. The vehicle
might be rumaragasa for her but the truth is, I was driving within the
speed limit.
16. From the above discussion, it is clear that I did not lack
precaution in driving my vehicle. I was not overspeeding nor was
violating any traffic rules when I hit the complainant. She crossed the
street while the greenlight is on and clearly, she took the risk of
crossing the street even though vehicles are flowing in East Avenue.
The evidence submitted does not
meet the required quantum of
evidence by law to establish a prima
facie case
17. In Paderanga vs Drilon4 , 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. A preliminary investigation is not the
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; 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. (Emphasis supplied)
18. In the instant case, 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. Hence, the evidence presented cannot engender a
well-founded belief that I drove recklessly and that I was
imprudent in driving my vehicle.
19. Also, even assuming for the sake of argument but without
admitting that I was rumaragasa as claimed by the complainant, her
injuries cannot be faulted to me as she crossed the street while the
3
4

Annex 3
Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga vs Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991

greenlight is on. The complainant herself also admitted that she was
not in the designated area when she crossed the street. Corollary, 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.
20. From the avobe discussion, 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, the prosecution must desist from
inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial. 5
(Emphasis ours)
21. With all the foregoing, it is respectfully implored that this
Honorable Office forthwith dismiss the instant Complaint for lack of
factual and legal basis.
22. I have caused the execution of the foregoing affidavit and
do hereby to attest to the truth of the declarations herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd
day of October 2015 in Quezon City, Philippines.
________________________
Name of the Respondent
PROSECUTORS CERTIFICATION
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 2nd day of
October 2015, in Quezon City. I hereby certify that I personally
examined the affiant, and am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood this Counter-Affidavit.
Name of Prosecutor
Assistant CITY Prosecutor

Rodolfo S. de Jesus vs Hon. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,

G.R. Nos. 164166 & 164173-80 October 17, 2007