Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Counter Affidavit Reckless Imprudence PDF Free
Sample Counter Affidavit Reckless Imprudence PDF Free
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY
Case Number
-versus- For: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Damage to Property
with Multiple Physical Injuries
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
STATEMENT OF FACTS
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
complainant’s 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
G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997
2
Annex 2
4
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. Complainant’s 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.
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
Annex 3
4
Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga vs Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991
5
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.
________________________
Name of the Respondent
PROSECUTOR’S CERTIFICATION
Name of Prosecutor
Assistant CITY Prosecutor
5
Rodolfo S. de Jesus vs Hon. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
G.R. Nos. 164166 & 164173-80 October 17, 2007