1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

ANGELO G. PABULAYAN,
Complainant,

-versus- I.S. No. XV-03-INV-211-07103

For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Damage to Property
BRUCE KENNETH O. TAN ,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

REPLY
(To Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit)

COMPLAINANT, by himself and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully states:

1. On February 14, 2022, Private Complainant received the Counter-Claim (sic) of Respondent
Bruce Kenneth O. Tan alleging therein that Respondent Tan is the victim and in total innocent
(sic) of the Recklessness not the Imprudence imputed to him. It was rather the Recklessness and
Imprudence of actions of the Complainant resulting to damage to property;

2. A careful perusal of the allegations made by Respondent are mere bare denials, self-serving
and negative allegations and defenses that are bereft of any proof to substantiate the same,

“ Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that

denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
testimony of the witnesses. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which
must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit
credibility. (People of the Philippines vs. Donato Bulasag y Arellano alias
“DONG” , G.R. No.172869, July 28, 2008).”

3. His affidavit (Counterclaim) clearly deserves scant consideration from this Honorable
Office , as it is elementary that “ denial not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is
negative and self-serving evidence bearing no weight in law”;

4. The case of Rosalinda Punzalan et al. vs. Michael Gamaliel J. Plata et al., G. R. No.
160316, September 2, 2013 citing People vs. Panlilio, 255 SCRA 503, is illuminating, to wit:

"Alibi and denial are inherently weak and could not prevail over the
positive testimony of the complainant." (Emphasis supplied)

5. On the contrary, private complainant not only gave positive testimony but also substantiated
his causes of action through documentary evidence coming from a Close Circuit Television
Camera Footage from the Barangay government of Barangay Sto. Domingo which enjoy the
presumption of regularity;

6. The elements of reckless imprudence are present in the case under the investigation of the
Honourable Office, to wit:
 2

“(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
(a) His employment or occupation
(b) Degree of intelligence, physical condition and
(c) Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.”
(Underscoring ours )

7. Inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, as illustrated in the case of People
vs. Enriquez, C.A. 40 O.G. 984 :

“A was driving his car. A saw that the vehicle of B was approaching
from the opposite direction and was so near that there was no room for
him to pass, because there was a carromata, resulting in the collision
between his car and the vehicle of B, A did not take the necessary
precaution to avoid damage to the property of another.”

8. It is simply contrary to human experience, logic, and common sense for a person who
believes he has no fault whatsoever, and no amount of denial can save respondent from the
finding of probable cause as his self-serving and bare denials, speculations and conjectures
compose his defense and are proper and best threshed out in a full-blown trial;

In Clay & Feather Intl. Inc. vs. Alexander & Clifford Lichaytoo, G.R. 193105, May 30,
2011, the Supreme Court ruled, viz:

“The counter-allegations of respondents essentially delve on

evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The
issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that
cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the
case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's
evidence in support of the charge. The presence or absence of the
elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense
that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. The
validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as
admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during
trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.” (Bold supplied
for emphasis)

9. Respondent’s claim that the incident was a typical “INTERSECTION COLLISION” and that
the rule observed is that vehicle from the LEFT must yield to vehicle from then RIGHT cannot
hold water under the sun,

“ The grant of right of way does not relieve the motorist from the duty
of keeping a lookout for motorist entering the intersection from his left
or right (People vs. Panuyas, 17 C.A. Rep. 347, citing People vs. Ramirez,
C.A.-G.R. No. 01640-CR, April 16, 1964 citing 8 Am. Jur. 2d “Automobiles
and Highway Traffic, ” Sec.736 nn 7-9; 5 Am. Jur. P. 666 Sec. 297 nn 13-
15). ”]

10. The Land Transportation Office guidelines reminds us to always stay sharp, stay vigilant
and be defensive. While the right of way is the ideal way to keep traffic moving, the LTO says
do not force it even if the other driver is in the wrong . If you are on the side road , and about to
enter a main road, stop first then proceed when safe, even if the road appears to be clear.
According to LTO all intersections without stop or yield signs, slow down and prepare to stop.
 3

Furthermore, cars travelling on a small road leading to an intersection linking to the main road
should always yield to traffic already travelling on the said main road.

11. To reiterate with the permission of the Honorable Office , it will be observed that the
judicial affidavit submitted by the respondent is not duly sworn to a person authorized to
administer oath, rendering the same a mere scrap of paper and inadmissible, while the jurat
portion of the judicial affidavit of complainant was intentionally omitted or covered to make the
same disappear. (please see the complainant’s judicial affidavit already formed part of the
records of this case.)

12. The Judicial Affidavit Complaint of Complainant Angelo G. Pabulayan corroborated at its
material points by documentary evidence clearly and unequivocally establish probable cause to
indict Respondent Bruce Kenneth O. Tan of the crime of RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING TO DAMAGE TO PROPERTY under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as
against the uncorroborated mere denials, speculations, conjectures and counter charges of
respondent;

13. In Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349, April 7, 1993, the Supreme Court ruled,
thus:

“We agree with respondent court that the presence or absence of the
elements of the crime are evidentiary in nature and are matters of
defense, the truth of which can best be passed upon after a full-blown
trial on the merits.

Probable cause has been defined in the leading case of Buchanan v. Vda.
de Esteban, as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Prosecutor to CHARGE and INDICT respondent BRUCE KENNETH O. TAN of the crime
of RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO DAMAGE TO PROPERTY under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code .

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

February 21, 2022, Quezon City , Philippines.

ANGELO G. PABULAYAN
Complainant
65-A2 Baco St., Bgy. Sta. Teresita,
Quezon City
 4

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of February 2022, in Quezon
City, Metro Manila.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2022.

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have examined the affiant/complainant and I am satisfied that he
voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit.

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR