Sample-counter-affidavit-reckless-imprudence compress

I, Name of the Respondent, Filipino, of legal age, with postal address at 115 V. 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

1. On June 12, 2015, at around 3:30 in the morning, I was driving along East Avenue, Quezon City, headed towards EDSA.
2. 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.
3. The complainant slammed in my windshield as a result of the impact.
4. I immediately brought the complainant to East Avenue Medical Center.
5. Before this case was filed, 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. The said agreement is hereto attached as Annex 1.
6. 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.

1. 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,

1. 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. Complainant’s claim in her SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY 3 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.
2. 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

1. In Paderanga vs Drilon 4 , 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)
2. 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.
3. 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 Annex 3 4 Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga vs Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, G. 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.

1. 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)
2. With all the foregoing, it is respectfully implored that this Honorable Office forthwith dismiss the instant Complaint for lack of factual and legal basis.
3. 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

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

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

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