REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

Name of the Compla!a!t"

Complainant "
Complainant "

Ca#e N$m%e& 
-versus- For: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Damage to Property
with Multiple Physical Injuries

Name of the Re#po!'e!t"

Respondent.
()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(

COUNTER)AFFIDA*IT

I, Name
Name of the Re#po!
Re#po!'e!
'e!t"
t"   Filipino, o legal age, with
postal address at !!" #$%$
#$%$ Ruino &treet, 'ega(pi #illage, Makati )ity,
ater *eing sworn in accordance with law, do here*y depose and
state that:

!$ I am the respondent +hereater reerred to as

+Re#po!'e!t
+Re#po!'e!t in this case or alleged commission o the crime o 
Reckless
Reckless Imprudence Resulting
Resulting in Damage to Property
Property with Multiple
Physical Injuries under %rticle ./" o the Revised Penal )ode$

0$ 1he
1he comp
complalain
intt is in con
conne
nect
ctio
ion
n wit
with
h the
the inju
injuri
ries
es sus
susta
tain
ined
ed
*y !ame of the ,ompla!a!t +he +herea
eater re
reerred
red to as
+Compla!a!t,
+Compla!a!t, resulting
resulting rom an accident that happened at around
.:.2 am, on 3une !0, 02!", along 4ast %ve$,
%ve$, 5ue(on )ity$

.$ 1he
1he comp
complalain
inan
antt ai
aile
led
d to est
esta*
a*li
lish
sh all
all the
the ele
eleme
ment
nts
s o the
the
crimes o Reckless Imprudence as provided or *y %rticle ./" o the
Revised Penal )ode$
 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6$ 7n 3une !0, 02!", at around .:.2 in the morning, I was

driving along 4ast %venue, 5ue(on )ity, headed towards 4D&%$

"$ %s I was approaching 8IR Road, I was surprised when

the complainant suddenly appeared in ront o the vehicle that I am
driving$ I have tried to stop the vehicle *ut it was already too late as
the complainant was already in ront o me$

/$ 1he complainant slammed in my windshield as a result o 

the impact$

9$ I immediately *rought the complainant to 4ast %venue

Medical )enter$

$ 8eore this case was iled, the complainant;s sister and I

agreed that I will just take care o her medical e<penses and that she
will not ile a case against me$ 1he said agreement is hereto attached
as %nne< !$

=$ I honestly *elieve that this case iled against me must *e

dismissed *ased on the ollowing discussions:

The ,ompla!a!t fale' to e#ta%l#h

all the eleme!t# of the ,&me of 
Re,-le## Imp&$'e!,e 'ef!e' $!'e& 
A&t,le ./0 of the RPC1

!2$ 1he complainant atally ailed to esta*lish all the elements

o Reckless Imprudence as deined under %rticle ./"$ Reckless
imprudence is deined as ollows:

>%rt$ ./"$ Imprudence and negligence.  ? <<<

Re,-le## mp&$'e!,e ,o!##t# !

2ol$!ta&l3" %$t 4tho$t mal,e" 'o!5 o& fal!5
to 'o a! a,t f&om 4h,h mate&al 'ama5e &e#$lt#
%3 &ea#o! of !e(,$#a%le la,- of p&e,a$to! o!
the pa&t of the pe&#o! pe&fo&m!5 o& fal!5 to
pe&fo&m #$,h a,t, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree o intelligence,
 3

physical condition and other circumstances

regarding persons, time and place$ <<<
+4mphasis supplied

!!$ In Cruz vs. Court of Appeals1, the &upreme )ourt

enumerated the elements o Reckless Imprudence, to wit:

>1he elements o reckless imprudence are: +! that

the offe!'e& 'oe# o& fal# to 'o a! a,t6  +0 that
the doing or the ailure to do that act is 2ol$!ta&3@
+. that it *e without malice@ +6 that material
damage results rom the reckless imprudence@ and
708 that the&e # !e(,$#a%le la,- of p&e,a$to!
on the part o the oender, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree o 
intelligence, physical condition, and other 
circumstances regarding persons, time and place$
+4mphasis supplied

!0$ In order or Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to

Property with Multiple Physical Injuries, it is essential that there must
have *een an act that was done 4th !e(,$#a%le la,- of 
p&e,a$to!$

!.$ In the instant case, there was no inding that the I ailed to
e<ercise the necessary precaution in driving the vehicle$ %s a matter 
o act, the 1R%FFI) %))ID4A1 IA#4&1IB%1I7A R4P7R1 0  would
immediately show that the complainant was not in the PEDESTRIAN
LANE when she crossed the road$ Cence, the injuries that the
respondent sustained could only *e aulted to her$ )orollary, one o 
the essential elements o Reckless Imprudence is lacking$

!6$ 1he act that she did not cross at the pedestrian lane is
determinative o who is at ault or the injuries that she sustained$
3udicial notice may *e taken that the designated area where a
pedestrian may cross is the pedestrial lane$ 1he purpose o the said
lane is to give warning or precaution to drivers that they have to *e
o*servant o possi*le pedestrians crossing the said lane$ Cence, the
complainant;s act o crossing the street outside the designated area
was the very reason why she was hit *y the respondent$ 8esides, the
greenlight was >on when I accidentally hit her$
1
 B$R$ Ao$ !0066", Aovem*er !, !==9
2
 %nne< 0
 4

!"$ It is also noteworthy that that there was no report that the
I was overspeeding nor was violating any traic rules at the time the
accident happened$ )omplainant;s claim in her &IAMP%%AB
&%'%E&%E. that I am >rumaragasa”  was just a sel-serving
statement$ %dditionally, the term >rumaragasa is relative$ 1he vehicle
might *e >rumaragasa or her *ut the truth is, I was driving within the
speed limit$

!/$ From the a*ove discussion, it is clear that I did not lack
precaution in driving my vehicle$ I was not overspeeding nor was
violating any traic rules when I hit the complainant$ &he crossed the
street while the greenlight is >on and clearly, she took the risk o 
crossing the street even though vehicles are lowing in 4ast %venue$

The e2'e!,e #$%mtte' 'oe# !ot

meet the &e9$&e' 9$a!t$m of 
e2'e!,e %3 la4 to e#ta%l#h a p&ma
fa,e ,a#e

!9$ In Paderanga vs Drilon 4 , the &upreme )ourt stated that

>tGhe Huantum o evidence now reHuired in preliminary investigation
is such evidence suicient to e!5e!'e& a 4ell fo$!'e' %elef a# to
the fa,t of the ,omm##o! of a ,&me a!' the &e#po!'e!t:#
p&o%a%le 5$lt the&eof $ % preliminary investigation is not the
occasion or the ull and e<haustive display o the partiesJ evidence@ it
is or the presentation o such evidence only as may engender a wen
grounded *elie that an oense has *een committed and that the
accused is pro*a*ly guilty thereo$ +4mphasis supplied

!$ In the instant case, what has just *een presented to this
Conora*le 7ice is a 1R%FFI) %))ID4A1 R4P7R1 which did not
provide any inormation that would show that I drove the car 
recklessly$ Cence, the e2'e!,e p&e#e!te' ,a!!ot e!5e!'e& a
4ell)fo$!'e' %elef that I '&o2e &e,-le##l3 a!' that I 4a#
mp&$'e!t ! '&2!5 m3 2eh,le1

!=$ %lso, even assuming or the sake o argument *ut without
admitting that I was >rumaragasa as claimed *y the complainant, her 
injuries cannot *e aulted to me as she crossed the street while the
3
 %nne< .
4
 %tty$ Miguel P$ Paderanga vs Con$ Franklin M$ Drilon, B$R$ Ao$ =/22 %pril !=, !==!
 5

greenlight is >on$ 1he complainant hersel also admitted that she was
not in the designated area when she crossed the street$ )orollary, the
injuries that she sustained can only *e attri*uted to the act that she
crossed the street while the greenlight is >on and to the act that she
did not cross the street at the proper pedestrian lane$

02$ From the avo*e discussion, I respectully su*mit that the

only course open or this Conora*le 7ice is to dismiss the complaint
against me, or the rule is that +4he! at the o$t#et the e2'e!,e
,a!!ot #$#ta! a p&ma fa,e ,a#e o& the e(#te!,e of p&o%a%le
,a$#e to fo&m a #$ff,e!t %elef a# to the 5$lt of the a,,$#e'
,a!!ot %e a#,e&ta!e'" the p&o#e,$to! m$#t 'e##t f&om
!fl,t!5 o! a!3 pe&#o! the t&a$ma of 5o!5 th&o$5h a t&al1; 0
+4mphasis ours

0!$ Kith all the oregoing, it is respectully implored that this

Conora*le 7ice orthwith dismiss the instant )omplaint or lack o 
actual and legal *asis$

00$ I have caused the e<ecution o the oregoing aidavit and

do here*y to attest to the truth o the declarations herein$

IA KI1A4&& KC4R47F, I have hereunto set my hand this 0nd

day o 7cto*er 02!" in 5ue(on )ity, Philippines$

 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 
Name of the Re#po!'e!t

PROSECUTOR<S CERTIFICATION

&8&)RI84D and &K7RA to *eore me this 0nd day o 

7cto*er 02!", in 5ue(on )ity$ I here*y certiy that I personally
e<amined the aiant, and am satisied that he voluntarily e<ecuted
and understood this )ounter-%idavit$

Name of P&o#e,$to& 
 %ssistant )I1E Prosecutor 

5
Rodolo &$ de 3esus vs Con$ &%ADIB%A8%E%A and 7FFI)4 7F 1C4 7M8D&M%A,
B$R$ Aos$ !/6!//  !/6!9.-2 7cto*er !9, 0229