New Era University

College of Law
Legal Aid Clinic

Case Synthesis

Case No. : 15-00727 – Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical Injury

Case Title : People vs. Jojee Banaag
Court Assigned : Metropolitan Trial Court Branch No. 32, Quezon City
Judge Assigned : Hon. Janet Abergos-Samar
Complainant : Anita L. Sanchez / Corazon S. Perez
Defendant/Accused : Jojee Banaag
Legal Interns : Mr. Christopher G. Halnin, Ms. Rhea Barroga, Mr. Emerson Ceria
Supervising Lawyer : Atty. Rodel R. Morta

I. Preliminary

The New Era University Legal Aid Clinic entered its appearance for the complainant in
the proceedings for the criminal case of Slight Physical Injury during the presentation of
evidence by the complainant. With the permission of her Hon. Judge Janet Abergos-Samar and
the presiding Public Prosecutor and the lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for the
accused, legal interns, Mr. Christopher G. Halnin, Ms. Rhea Barroga and Mr. Emerson Ceria
under the supervision of Atty. Rodel R. Morta, entered their appearance to represent the interest
of the complainant and victim in the case.

According to the records of the case, four witnesses shall be presented by the
complainant during the presentation of evidence, Anita L. Sanchez, the victim/complainant,
Corazon S. Perez, complainant and daughter of the victim, SPO3 Renato Sunga, police
investigator, and Dr. Lex Christopher Andaya, expert witness.

II. Facts of the Case

Version of the Complainant

In April 13, 2014 at about 6:00 to 7:00 PM in the evening, the victim, Anita L. Sanchez,
on her way home, was walking along the side of the road of Haizer Street, Kaingin II, Pansol
Balara, Quezon City, then from the direction in front of her, the accused came, riding a single-

1
type motorcycle which was allegedly at a speed between 10 to 15 kph, negligently hit the victim
causing her to be thrown at a not far distant on the road pavement. The victim suffered
concussions, head injury as her head hit the ground, fracture as the motorcycle hit her, and
bruises in other parts of her body. Immediately at the scene, who saw the incident, was Mr.
Joselito Palad, a Barangay Police Officer (BPO), who is also walking along the street. After
seeing the incident, he called for help from other BPOs and brought the victim to Quirino
Memorial Medical Center and subsequently, reported the incident to the police.

The victim was accompanied by the BPOs and the accused to the hospital. Immediately
thereafter, Ms. Corazon S. Perez, the daughter of the victim, with his brother came to the hospital
to see the condition of their mother. There, they saw the accused, Jojee Banaag, and the BPOs
who brought their mother to the hospital. The accused paid for the hospital bills and before the
victim was discharged from the hospital, the accused made verbal assurance to the family of the
victim that he will shoulder all the necessary medical expenses for the recovery of the victim in
exchange for not filing a formal complaint against the accused.

The next day, in order to formalize their agreement, they met in the Office of the
Barangay Chairman to record their agreement and have it documented or in writing. The
agreement was signed by both parties in the presence of the Barangay Official and as witness.
Reflected in the agreement is that the accused will shoulder all the necessary medical expenses
that shall be incurred during the days of recovery of the victim. However, the accused did not
honor their agreement and renege on his obligation, hence, the family of the victim filed a formal
complaint. At first the complaint was filed at the Barangay for barangay conciliation proceeding
but the parties were not able to come to an agreement where the accused specifically denied the
allegations of not complying with their agreement. Thus, the complaint was elevated to the
Prosecutor’s Office. Finding probable cause, the case of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Slight
Physical Injuries was filed against the accused. The case was then assigned to Metropolitan Trial
Court (MTC) Branch 32, Quezon City of the National Capital Judicial Region, Hon. Judge Janet
Abergos Samar presiding.

Before the start of the trial proceedings, Hon. Judge Janet Abergos-Samar, ordered the
case to be remanded to the Philippine Mediation Center for a mediation proceedings between
parties involved, however, the mediation did not yield positive result, thus, the trial proceeded.

III. Trial Proceedings

For the criminal aspect of the case, the complainant would like to prove that the accused
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight Physical Injury resulting from Reckless
Imprudence of the accused and to suffer the corresponding penalty therefore. For its civil aspect,
2
the complainant would like to recover damages in the amount of P20,000.00 to cover the actual
expenses for the medication of the victim and the negative emotional effect suffered by the
victim as a result of the incident.

As mentioned earlier, the Legal Aide Clinic of the NEU College of Law only started to
enter its appearance where the trial was already for presentation of evidence by the complainant.
On separate dates of the trial, several individuals were presented as witness for the complainant
as well as documentary evidences were also presented which was verified and attested by the
witnesses.

First to testify was the victim and complainant herself, Anita L. Sanchez. During the
testimony of the victim, her Judicial Affidavit (JUDAF) was presented to the court and the
victim was made to identified and verified said JUDAF as her truthful testimony on the accounts
of the incident that happened last April 13, 2014. The JUDAF also contained pre-marked
evidence presented by the complainant.

Second to testify was the daughter of the victim, Corazon S. Perez, also as the
complainant in the case. Her testimony was presented to prove the fact that they incurred medical
expenses which was supposed to be shouldered by the accused based on the agreement that they
had. Her JUDAF was also presented as her truthful testimony of the events that transpired on the
day of the accident. Pre-marked documentary evidence was also presented, as mentioned in the
JUDAF, to prove to the court that the incident did happen and that the medical expenses were
shouldered by the family of the victim. The documentary evidence presented were, the
Agreement made by the parties and several medical receipts for purchasing medical drugs,
equipments and doctor’s fees. Afterwards, said documentary evidence was requested to be
marked as part of the exhibits for the complainant as evidence.

Third to testify was SPO3 Renato Sunga of the Traffic Sector 3 of the Department of
Traffic and Enforcement Unit of the Quezon City Police District. His testimony was presented to
prove that the incident did happen and a Police Report was prepared by the witness relating to
the incident. During his testimony the Police Report prepared by him was asked to be produced
from him and presented in court and for him to testify as to the authenticity and veracity of the
report. Afterwards, said report was requested to be marked as part of the exhibits for the
complainant as evidence.

Fourth to be presented as witness was Mr. Joselito Palad. However, his presentation as
witness for the complainant was objected by the lawyer from PAO. This was due to the fact that
he was not on the list of witnesses identified during the pre-trial proceeding. At this point Hon.
Judge Janet Abergos-Samar ordered the court staff to review the records if Mr. Joselito Palad
3
was on the list of the witnesses identified during the pre-trial and it was found out that indeed he
was not on the list of witnesses and that the witness that was supposed to be presented during
that time was Dr. Lex Christopher Andaya, an expert witness. Thus, a motion to allow the
testimony of Mr. Joselito Palad was made with a justification that since he is a material witness
being the person who has personal knowledge of the incident and did identified that Jojee
Banaag, the accused is the one he personally saw who hit the victim with a motorcycle ridden by
the accused. Luckily, the judge was very considerate and allowed the witness to testify based on
the materiality of the testimony of the witness and his credibility as witness. As usual, his
JUDAF was presented to the court and was submitted and requested to be a part of the exhibits
for the complainant as evidence.

After the testimony of Mr. Joselito Palad, Hon. Judge Janet Abergos-Samar made a ruling
on the absence of the expert witness on the date of his presentation as witness for the
complainant. She ruled that considering that notice was timely given to the said witness, the
court ruled that the testimony of the expert witness, Dr. Lex Christopher Andaya be waived.
Thus, a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was made by the counsel for the complainant and the
judge ordered the MR be submitted in court within three days before the next scheduled hearing.
Judge Abergos also ordered that Formal Offer of Evidence be submitted on the same date for the
MR, thereafter, the MR and Formal Offer of Evidence was timely submitted. Unfortunately,
during the motion day, Judge Abergos-Samar denied the MR.

On the next trial date, it is the turn of the accused to present his evidence. During said
date for the trial, the accused presented only two witnesses, himself and the person whom he said
who also witnessed the incident. For his defense, the accused testified that on the date of the
incident, he saw Anita L. Sanchez already lying on the ground when he passed by and stopped to
help her. On the part of the witness for the accused, he testified that at the time of the incident he
was at home and got a call from the accused for help regarding the incident.

After the witness for the accused had finished testifying, Hon. Judge Janet Abergos-
Samar ordered the case to be set for promulgation of judgment on January 27, 2016, 8:30 AM.

IV. Notes and Comments

Considering that the Legal Aid Clinic had only entered its appearance for the
complainant during the presentation of evidence of the complainant and not during the start of
the whole proceedings, it is worth to note and bear in mind to be always aware of the judicial
process during actual trial. One problem encountered during the trial was the denial of the MR
for the presentation of an expert witness for the complainant. Admittedly, the private counsel for
4
the complainant have made a mistake of not reviewing the records of the case which resulted in
the ruling by the court to waive the testimony of the expert witness for not appearing on the
scheduled date of hearing where he should be presented instead, what was presented as witness
was another person who was not included in the list of witnesses during the pre-trial, luckily, the
judge allowed his testimony to be admitted as evidence on the basis of materiality and
credibility.

An important lesson learned from this case is that as counsel we should always be
mindful of the case that we handle, specifically, by looking at the records of the case and
knowing each and every aspect.

Prepared by:

CHRISTOPHER G. HALNIN
Legal Intern

RHEA BARROGA
Legal Intern

EMERSON CERIA
Legal Intern

Noted by:

ATTY. RODEL R. MORTA

Supervising Lawyer