Prejudicial question; good faith as defense;

sample comment/opposition to motion for

reconsideration

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(To Complainants’ 
“Motion For Reconsideration”, 
Dated 21 December 2015)

The RESPONDENTS, pro se, respectfully state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1.         MATERIAL DATES.

X x x.

2.    ADOPTION CLAUSE.

For the record, the respondents hereby adopt into this Comment, by incorporation and reference,
all their allegations, arguments, and supporting documents stated, described and attached to their
(a) JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT, dated June 2, 2015, and their (b) JOINT REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT,
dated Jun2, 22, 2015. 

COMPLAINANT’S SOLE GROUND 

IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

3.    The sole ground for the complainant’s motion for reconsideration is that no Prejudicial Question
exists and that the instant case should be resolved on the merits. 

In effect, the complainant prays that the herein respondents be indicted for alleged violation of R.A.
No. 8041, otherwise known as the Water Crisis Act of 1995, as charged by the complainant.

4.    X x x.
5.     X x x .
X x xx.

ON THE ISSUE OF 

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.

6.     The questioned Resolution, dated 4 August 2015, of this Honorable Office, suspending and archiving the
instant case on the ground of PREJUDICIAL QUESTION, should be affirmed, upheld and respected by
this Honorable Office: 

(a) For being fair, reasonable, and just; 

 (b) For promoting jurisprudential stability (stare decisis) and procedural orderliness in the
administration of the criminal justice system; and 

(a)             For being in consonance with the Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence on the matter. 

To repeat, the complainant had previously filed a civil case (Exh. “14”, Joint Counter Affidavit)
against the herein respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch xxx, of xxx, docketed
as Civil Case No. xxx, for Injunction and Damages.

The said pending civil case raises and involves legal and factual issues similar or intimately related to
the issues raised in the instant case. 

The core issue in the said pending related/”prejudicial” civil case is: 

Whether or not the xxx BOARD of xxx (i.e., herein respondents) has the legal authority to manage,
control, supervise and operate the xxx Water System, pursuant to Board Resolution No. xxx which
revoked Board Resolution No. xxx.

Board Resolution No. xxx expressly revoked the authority of complainant ASMPC to operate and
manage the ASHAI Water System under Board Resolution No. xxx. 

Board Resolution No. xxx was ratified by 496 homeowners, an overwhelming majority, in a Mass
Petition, dated February 25, 2015.

The validity of the said board resolutions is legal and factual issue that must be resolved and
determined by the RTC, Branch xxx, of xxx, xxx after trial on the merits of the said pending
related/”prejudicial” civil case.

If the Trial Court determines, with finality, that the xxx Board has the legal authority to manage,
control, supervise and operate the xxx Water System, 

(a) pursuant to Board Resolution No. 010-2014 which revoked Board Resolution No. xxx, 

(b) pursuant to the February 25, 2015 ratification by the overwhelming majority of 496 members of
xxx, and 

(c) pursuant to the terms and conditions of the valid xxx-MWCI Bulk Water Service Agreement that
was duly mediated by the HLURB, 

then, the legal effect of such a Judicial Determination in the said related “prejudicial” civil case
would be to wholly ACQUIT the herein respondents of any and all criminal charges of alleged
violation/s of the Water Crisis Act of 1995.