Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Branch V
Baguio City

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 44950-
Plaintiff-Appellee, R (On Appeal)

– versus – (MTCC Branch 1 Crim.

Case No. 499-20-CR-
JASON DELIZO TOVERA MTCC)
Accused-
Appellant. For: Reckless
Imprudence Resulting
X-------------------- In Damage to Property
X

MEMORANDUM
Accused-Appellant, by Counsel, in compliance with the
Notice by the Honorable Court dated 09 December 2021, a
copy of which was received on 13 December 2021, most
respectfully submits this Memorandum on Appeal.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.1. This is an Ordinary Appeal under Rule 40 of the Revised

Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 1 of
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City,
Branch 1 in Criminal Case No. 499-20-CR-MTCC,
promulgated on 22 October 2021, a copy of which was
received by the Accused-Appellant on the same date, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the court finds the

accused JASON DELIZO TOVERA guilty of
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY under Criminal Case
No. 499-20-CR-MTCC, and he is sentenced to
pay a fine of two hundred ninety thousand
pesos (Php290,000.00) Philippine Currency,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
1
Decision in Criminal Case No. 138178, dated 15 March 2019.

Page 1 of 14
 insolvency, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article
39 of the Revised Penal Code.

He is hereby ordered to pay the private

complainant RHEGEM BELIANO SANTOS for
the repairs of the ISUZU DROPSIDE truck with
Plate No. THQ 793 amounting to
Php289,620.00.

Costs against Accused.

SO ORDERED.”

II. THE PARTIES

2.1. Accused-Appellant JASON DELIZO TOVERA (Tovera) is of

legal age, Filipino citizen with residence and postal
address at Pias, Camp 7, Baguio City, Philippines. He
may be served with summons, notices, orders and other
processes of the Honorable Court through the
undersigned Counsels at their office address, Unit L5-Q,
Kayang Business Center, Kayang St., cor. Chugum St.,
Baguio City.

2.2. Plaintiff-Appellee, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

may be served with summons, notices, orders and other
processes of the Honorable Court through Office of the
City Prosecutor of Baguio City.

2.3. Private Complainant-Appellee RHEGEM BELIANO

SANTOS (Santos) is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and with residence and postal address at FD 103C
Pinespark, Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines. He
may be served with summons, notices, orders and other
processes of the Honorable Court through Private
Prosecutor Atty. Maria Luisa M. Reynante at Room 205
Golden Court Building, Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City,
Philippines.

III. ANTECEDENT FACTS

3.1. On or about 10:00 PM in the evening of 05 June 2020,

Santos was driving an Isuzu Truck along Kennon Road,
Camp 7, Baguio City, where he came from the direction
of Camp 6 and headed to the City Proper while the
Page 2 of 14
 vehicle driven by Tovera was coming from the direction of
the City Proper towards Camp 7 when both vehicles
collided causing damages;

3.2. Santos, in his Judicial Affidavit2, and testimony in open

court claims that on 05 June 2020, he came from the
direction of Camp 6 going to City Proper when the driven
vehicle by Tovera abruptly overshoots invading recklessly
towards his lane since it was raining;

3.3. Tovera on the other hand contends in his Judicial

Affidavit3 as well as his testimony in open court claims
that on the evening of 05 June 2020, he was driving his
Honda Civic with Licensed Plate No. WJW 832 coming
from City Proper going to Pias, Camp 7, Kennon Road as
he was then heading home to his residence. His vehicle
was lowered and so he was driving slowly and carefully
especially that he was a few meters away from his house,
getting ready to turn left. According to Tovera, the
Dropside Truck driven by Santos was going up and
speeding as it was not loaded and empty. As the road
was slightly curved, the Drop Side Truck invaded his lane
which caused the collision;

3.4. After the collision, Tovera lost consciousness and was

immediately rushed to the Baguio General Hospital by
his wife while Santos was interviewed and able to give his
statement to the Traffic Investigators.

3.5. On 29 July 2020, a Resolution 4 was issued by the Office

of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City recommending the
indictment and prosecution of Jason Delizo Tovera for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property
and the dismissal of the complaint against Rhegem
Beliano Santos for lack of probable cause. Consequently,
an Information5 was filed with the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 of Baguio City, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 499-20-CR-MTCC, entitled, The People
of the Philippines v. Jason Delizo Tovera, for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.

3.6. On 18 September 2020, Accused was Arraigned. On 05

October 2020, Pre-Trial Conference ensued. Thereafter,

2
2 Exhibit “A” of the Prosecution, Sworn Statement of Rhegem B. Santos
3
Judicial Affidavit of Jason Tovera
4
Resolution in NPS Docket Nos. I-17-INV-20-0765 and I-17-INV-20-0845 dated 29 July 2020.
5
Information in Criminal Case No. 499-2--MTCC.

Page 3 of 14
 Trial of the case commenced and the Prosecution
presented the testimony of the Private Complainant
Santos and witness PSGG Oscar T. Ramos and Michael
Saguico as well as the following Documentary Evidence:
Complainant’s Sworn Statement6, the Traffic Accident
Investigation Report7, Photographic Sketch of the
incident8, Certificate of Registration of the Honda Civic 9
and Receipts of the Expenses incurred for the Repairs of
the Dropside Truck10. The Defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimonies and Judicial Affidavit of the
Accused-Appellant Tovera11 and Katrina Mae Tovera as
well as the following documentary evidence: Proof of
Residence of the Accused 12, Screenshot Location from
Google Maps13, Certificate of Registration of the Honda
Civic,14 Official Receipt of the Honda Civic 15, Driver’s
License of the Accused16, Official Receipt of the Honda
Civic dated February 19, 2020 17, Driver’s License of the
Complainant with Restrictions18, Official Receipt and
Certificate of Registration of the Dropside Truck 19,
Medical Certificates from Baguio General Hospital 20,
Medical Certificates from Notre Dame de Chartres
Hospital21, Medical Certificate issued by Ruth C.
Ambsaing,M.D22., Photographs of the damages sustained
by the vehicle of Tovera23, Initial Estimate of damages
sustained by the vehicle of Tovera 24, and the Official
Receipts of his Medical Expenses 25.

3.7. Thereafter, on 22 October 2020, the MTCC Branch 1 of

Baguio City promulgated its Decision, finding the
Accused-Appellant Tovera guilty of the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property punishable
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering
6
Supra, Note 2.
7
Exhibit “B” for the Prosecution
8
Exhibit “C” for the Prosecution
9
Exhibit “D” for the Prosecution
10
Exhibit “F” and “G” for the Prosecution
11
Supra, Note 3
12
Exhibit 1 for the Defense
13
Exhibit 2 for the Defense
14
Exhibit 3 for the Defense
15
Exhibit “3-a” for the Defense
16
Exhibit “3-b” for the Defense
17
Exhibit “3-c” for the Defense
18
Exhibit “4”, “4-a” and “4-b” for the Defense
19
Exhibit “5” and “5-a” for the Defense
20
Exhibit “6” for the Defense
21
Exhibit “7” for the Defense
22
Exhibit “8” for the Defense
23
Exhibit “9 and series” for the Defense, Photographs of the vehicles involved during the incident
24
Exhibit “10” for the Defense
25
Exhibit “11 and series” for the Defense, Official Receipts of Medical Expenses.

Page 4 of 14
 that the case falls under the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, the Accused-Appellant Tovera, through
Counsel directly appealed the case via a Notice of Appeal
dated 25 October 2020. Hence this present appeal before
this Honorable Court.

IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

4.1. The Court a quo erred in convicting the

Accused-Appellant based on the evidence
presented by the Prosecution which does not
meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

4.2. The Court a quo erred in finding that the

Accused-Appellant Tovera is liable to pay the
damages amounting to PhP289,620.00.

V. ARGUMENTS

5.1. The right of a person using public streets and highways

for travel in relation to other motorists is mutual,
coordinate and reciprocal. He is bound to anticipate the
presence of other persons whose rights on the street or
highway are equal to his own. Although he is not an
insurer against injury to persons or property, it is
nevertheless his duty to operate his motor vehicle with
due and reasonable care and caution under the
circumstances for the safety of others as well as for his
own.26

5.2. This instant appeal is anchored on the argument that the

Court erred in finding the guilt of the Accused-Appellant
Tovera based on the evidence presented by the
Prosecution which does not meet the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

5.3. In support of its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

against Tovera, the Court, in is Decision 27 stated that:

“From the facts of the case, it would show that

the ISUZU Dropside Truck driven by the
complainant was ascending the highway when
26
Tabao v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011.
27
Supra, Note 1.

Page 5 of 14
 it collided with the Honda Civic which was
descending the same highway, the Kennon
Road. They were proceeding to different
directions. Going downward, the Honda Civic
had the tendency to accelerate, which explains
why the Honda abruptly overshoots and
invaded the lane of the truck. xxx

There was no showing that the Isuzu Truck

was speeding. Considering its size and weight
of the Isuzu Truck, its speed could not be more
than that of a Honda Civic which was running
downhill.”(Emphasis Supplied.)

5.4. As it could be read from the above-quoted ruling, the

conviction of Tovera was based on the findings of the
Court that those who are going downward a highway has
a tendency to accelerate as opposed to those going
upward.

5.5. Contrary to this finding, the Accused-Appellant was able

to present his evidence28 to prove that he was not driving
fast. The incident happened just few meters away from
his residence which is why there is no reason for him to
be speeding as he was so close to being home. No person
in his right mind would be speeding when already
approaching their destination.

5.6. It is actually contrary to common human experience and

understanding that those who are going downward has a
tendency to accelerate, when in fact it is during this time
that stepping on the brake is required to have the most
control over the vehicle.

5.7. A motorist is expected to exercise ordinary care and drive

at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with all the
conditions encountered, to enable him to keep the vehicle
under control and, whenever necessary, to put the
vehicle to a full stop to avoid injury to others using the
highway.29

5.8. Moreover, Santos in his Sworn Statement alleges that:

28
Supra, Note 4
29
Nunn v. Financial Indem. Co., 694 So.2d 630. Duty of reasonable care includes duty to keep the vehicle
under control and to maintain proper lookout for hazards

Page 6 of 14
 “Sir, it came from the direction of City Proper heading
down grade towards Camp 7, when his driven
vehicle abruptly overshoots invading recklessly
towards my lane”30(Emphasis Supplied)

5.9. It has been held in Bayasen vs Court of Appeals that:

“Where proximate cause of the accident was

skidding of the rear wheels of the jeep and not the
unreasonable speed of the accused-driver, no
negligence can be charged to the accused. Skidding,
interpreted - it is obvious that the proximate cause of
the tragedy was the skidding of the rear wheels of
the jeep and not the unreasonable speed of the
petitioner because there was no evidence on record
to prove or support the finding that the petitioner was
driving at an unreasonable speed”31

5.10.Santos further alleges that:

“Q8: How did the incident happen?

A8: Sir it was raining that time when while driving
my vehicle heading upgrade loaded with Assorted Fruits
and Vegetables towards the direction of City Proper, when
the vehicle driven by Mr. Tovera abruptly invaded my
lane that resulted to a head-on collision” 32(Emphasis
Supplied)

5.11.It is a well known physical fact that cars may skid on

greasy or slippery roads, as in the instant case, without
fault on account of the manner of handling the car.
Skidding means partial or complete loss of control of the
car under circumstances not necessarily implying
negligence. It may occur without fault.33 (Emphasis
Supplied)

Complainant Santos is not

qualified to be driving the
Isuzu Dropside Truck

30
Answer No. 7 in Complainant’s Sworn Statement
31
Bayasen vs Court of Appeals, Gr. No. L25785, February 26, 1981
32
Question and Answer No. 8 in Complainant’s Sworn Statement
33
Supra, Note 30

Page 7 of 14
 5.12.Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the legal presumption
of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person
was violating any traffic regulation. (Emphasis
Supplied). However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v
Court of Appeals, it was held:

That a causal connection must exist between the

injury received and the violation of the traffic
regulation. It must be proven that the violation of the
traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of
the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation
of law, like any other negligence, is without legal
consequence unless it is a contributory cause of the
injury.”

5.13. Evidence34 presented by the Accused-Appellant clearly

showed that the Complainant was violating a traffic
regulation, as he was driving a vehicle weighing 4,800KgS
Gross Weight Vehicle (GWV) when his license restricts him of
only up to 4,500 KgS (GWV).

5.14. Considering that Santos has a restriction to drive vehicle

weighing 4,500 only, he obviously is not qualified to drive the
Isuzu Dropside Truck since he has no knowledge of how to
handle and maneuver a vehicle which is beyond his limit and
capacity.

5.15. In fact, during his testimony in open court, he further

alleged that he was carrying 1.5 to 2 tons of fruits and
vegetables. If this was in fact true, the weight of the truck plus
his load of fruits and vegetables were way more than what he is
allowed by law;

5.16. He negligently operated a vehicle which he is not allowed

to with complete disregard of its consequence, which may have
given rise to the danger of collision.

5.17. The violation of his restriction in his Driver’s License, a

violation of a Traffic Regulation, is the one which was the
proximate cause of the collision; hence, there can be no fault
attributed to the Accused-Appellant. In fact, had he be not in
the road and driving on that night, there would be no collision
to speak of;

34
Supra, Note

Page 8 of 14
5.18. Thus, something more than mere negligence in the
operation of a motor vehicle is necessary to constitute the
offense of reckless driving, and a willful and wanton disregard
of the consequences is required. Willful, wanton or reckless
disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of
reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious
choice of a course of action which injures another, either with
knowledge of serious danger to others involved, or with
knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any
reasonable person.35

5.19. During his re-cross, Santos alleges that he asked the

Land Transportation Office to add restriction code 3 in order
to be allowed to drive the truck, which is an evident
afterthought. In spite of the alleged request, however, no
evidence to prove the same was presented.

5.20. Assuming arguendo that Santos indeed asked that

the restriction code 3 be added to his Driver’s License, the
fact remains that at the time of the collision on 05 June
2020, he was in possession of a Driver’s License which does
not allow him to drive the Isuzu Dropside Truck, a clear
violation of the Traffic Regulation, and clear negligence on his
part;

The Prosecution Failed to

Prove the Damages incurred
amounting to PhP289,620.00
was caused by the collision

5.1. The Complainant Santos alleges that the initial

estimate of the damage sustained by the Rebuilt
Dropside Truck amounts to PhP289,620.00 during trial,
he presented as witness Michael Saguico (Saguico for
brevity) who repaired the truck who further alleged that
the actual damages he incurred is PhP308,730.

5.2. During cross-examination of Saguico, he confirmed

that the Dropside Truck was damaged on the left side
portion, contrary to the claim of Santos that it was a
head-on collision. The receipts he likewise presented
were not Official Receipts.

35
Wofford v. State, 395 S.E.2d 630 (1990); Shorter v. State, 122 N.E.2d 847 (1954); White v. State, 647
S.W.2d 751 (1983).

Page 9 of 14
 5.3. In fact, careful scrutiny on one of the documents 36
presented, several parts were purchased, such as
radiator, rain gutter, shut off motor, parts which are
obviously not part of the damaged left portion of the
truck. Hence, not proven to be damaged as caused by the
collision.

5.4. Again, documents37 claimed to be receipts of

repairs conducted on the vehicle are not Official Reciepts,
most of which are Sales Invoice and Delivery Receipts not
even in the name of Saguico nor Santos. Hence, actual
damages alleged were not substantiated.

5.5. Further, the Prosecution failed to prove that the

amount of damages was actually incurred by Santos.
During cross examintation, Saguico admitted that:

“Atty G. Posadas: So, since you are now saying and

admitting that it is Mr. Joey Santos who is the
owner of the truck, it means to say that he was the one
who paid for the repairs?
A: Yes, sir.”
xxx

“Atty G. Posadas: So you do not know if Mr. Rhegem

Santos or Mr. Joey Santos was the one who paid for the
expenses in repairing the truck?
A: No, Sir.”38 (Emphasis Supplied)

xxx

“Atty G. Posadas: So, who handed you over the money

to be used in paying for the repairs?
A: “Bunaca”, sir.”39

5.6  In prosecutions for reckless imprudence resulting in

damage to property, whether or not one of the drivers of the
colliding automobiles is guilty of the offense is a question that
lies in the manner and circumstances of the operation of the
motor vehicle, and a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely, (a)
that the offender has done or failed to do an act; (b) that the
act is voluntary; (c) that the same is without malice; (d) that

36
Exhibit F-4 of the Prosecution
37
Supra, Note 36
38
TSN dated June 8, 2021, Page 17
39
TSN dated June 8, 2021, Page 18

Page 10 of 14
material damage results; and (e) that there has been
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender. 40

5.7 The element of material damage is lacking.

5.8 To reiterate, the complaint or information is for the

alleged violation of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property, and must state the name and
surname of the person against whom or against whose
property the offense was committed, which in this case
would be the owner of the dropside truck who would
actually incur the damages to the driven vehicle and not
the driver thereof.

5.9 Simply put, without the statement of the owner of the

damaged vehicle, who must be the party injured by the
Accused, there is nothing to hold the Accused as guilty for the
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Property. Material damage in the present case, would be on
the part of the owner of the truck and not the driver thereof.
Hence, the award of damages alleged in the complaint by
Santos cannot be awarded since he was not the one who
directly suffered the same.

The Prosecution Failed to

Prove Beyond Reasonable
Doubt that the Accused is
Negligent

5.21. One of the witnesses presented by the

Prosecution is Police Staff Sergeant Oscar Tiwang Ramos.
During cross-examination, he confirmed that he did not
actually see what happened as there were no CCTV or
Dashboard Camera Footage presented. In fact, his basis of the
sketch was what he saw only at the time he arrived, a few
minutes after the accident. He further confirmed that:

“Atty Avila: So Mr. Witness, based on this sketch, you still

would not know who invaded the lane, correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.”41

5.22. Despite the witness being a Traffic

Accident Investigator for more than three (3)
years, it does not change the fact that he cannot
ascertain what actually transpired since
40
The Revised Penal Code, Reyes, Luis B., 15th ed. (2001) p. 995.
41
TSN dated November 25, 2020, page 13

Page 11 of 14
 accidents have different circumstances, and that
he cannot confirm that it was the Accused-
Appellant who was negligent at the time of the
incident;

5.23. The sketch of the incident shows that the

vehicle driven by Tovera was not able to stop
from its point of impact with the vehicle of
Santos and that there were debris found, that of
which came from the vehicle of Tovera. Again
this is because given the weight of the truck and
that of the sedan, it is most probable that there
will be debris coming from the sedan as it was
more damaged compared to the Dropside Truck.

5.24. The truck is more difficult to move as it is

heavier. It is the car, the lighter vehicle which
would move away from the truck.

5.1. The totality of the evidence presented shows no sign that

Tovera was negligent aside from the self-serving
testimony of Santos and the Sketch which clearly does
not prove that Tovera was overspeeding.

5.2. A careful scrutiny of the totality of the foregoing facts and

the evidence presented would show that the guilt of
Accused-Appellant beyond reasonable doubt was not
established by the Prosecution. Instead, the facts and
evidence availing in the present case all lead towards the
conclusion that Santos is the person who failed to
exercise due diligence in this case.

VI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

6.1. The rule is clear. The guilt of the accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and every circumstance in his
favor shall be considered. This is in keeping with the
constitutional mandate that every accused shall be
presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.42 Based on the totality of the evidence
presented in this case, taking into consideration the
credibility of the testimony of Private Complainant
himself, the same is far from the quantum of evidence
mandated in criminal cases that must constitute an
42
People v. Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, 4 February 2003.

Page 12 of 14
 unbroken chain leading, beyond reasonable doubt, to the
guilt of the Accused, hence the latter must be acquitted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed for from this Honorable Court to REVERSE
and SET ASIDE the DECISION of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 1 of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 499-20-
CR-MTCC and that a new one be rendered ACQUITTING the
Accused-Appellant JASON DELIZO TOVERA of the crime of
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

Such other remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 28 th day of December 2021,

in the City of Baguio, Philippines.

LAW OFFICES of
AVILA, BENZON, MARIANO
POSADAS, TADE
Counsel for the Accused-Appellant
Unit L5-Q, Kayang Business Center, Kayang Street.,
Cor Chugum St., Baguio City
(074) 619-59-28

By:

KATRINA D. AVILA
Roll No. 67947, 25 May 2017
IBP Lifetime No. 017526; 01 June 2017
Baguio-Benguet Chapter
PTR No. 1288387; 05 January 2021; Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0004075, 21 November 2017
TIN 280-584-879

NOTICE and COPY FURNISHED:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court – Branch 5
Justice Hall, Baguio City

Page 13 of 14
Office of the City Prosecutor
Justice Hall
Baguio City
Atty Ma. Luisa M. Reynante
Counsel for the Complainant
Room 205 Golden Court Building,
Magsaysay Avenue

Sir/Ma’am:

Please take notice that the undersigned Counsel will

submit the foregoing Memorandum on Appeal for the
consideration of the Honorable Court immediately upon
receipt hereof, without further arguments.

KATRINA D. AVILA

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure, this is to certify that copies of the foregoing
Memorandum of Appeal was served by registered mail due to
distance consideration and manpower constraints.

KATRINA D. AVILA

Page 14 of 14