REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE, REGION III
Office of the City Prosecutor
City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan

NELLY FRANCISCO y NUNGAY,

Complainant,

NPS DOCKET NO. III-15-INV-221-00607

FOR: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Physical Injury

-versus-

JELBERT DAYONDON,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMPLAINANT, to this Honorable Office, respectfully files this

Motion for Reconsideration on the Resolution dated September 13,
2022 and in support thereof alleges the following:

TIMELINESS OF THIS MOTION

A copy of the aforesaid Resolution was received by the

Complainant only on January 3, 2022. She then requested from this
Honorable Office an extension of five (5) days to file this Motion and
said request was given due course. Hence, this Motion is being filed
within the said period.

DISCUSSION

In the assailed one-page Resolution, the investigating

prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. But a
perusal of the same would reveal that there was no specific ground
or cause specified to support such conclusion. The quoted case of
Picart vs. Smith is not even related nor similar to the facts of the
instant case.

Nevertheless, complainant humbly moves for reconsideration of

the said findings on the following grounds:

1
1. There’s probable cause to indict the respondent for
reckless imprudence

Reckless imprudence consists involuntary, but without malice,

doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place. 1To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be
something more than a mere negligence in the operation of the
motor vehicle, but a willful and wanton disregard of the
consequences is required.2

Complainant, in her sworn statement, categorically stated that

when she rode the tricycle being driven by the respondent, the latter
drove it recklessly prompting the complainant to request him to drive
safely. But instead of heeding the said request respondent continued
driving his vehicle negligently while laughing at her.

The scene was vividly narrated by the complainant in her

complaint-affidavit, to quote:

“S6. ……..Na ako ay umupo sa loob ng sidecar ng tricycle, subalit

habang nasa daanan kami ay napansin kong mabilis ang patakbo nang driver na
si Jelbert Dayondon sa tricycle kaya sinabihan ko siya kong pweding magdahan-
dahan at ako ay nababasa sa talsik ng mga tobig sa may kalsada at malakas ang
ulan ng oras na iyon, ganun din analog alog ako sa loob ng sidecar ng tricycle at
may mga humps na dadaanan. Subalit imbes na magdahan-dahan ng patakbo si
Jelbert Dayondon ay lalo nitong binilisan habang tumatawa kaya ako ay lalong
nabasa at nauntog-untog sa bubong ng side car ng tricycle dahilan para
magtamo ako ng bukol at sugat sa ulo ko”

S7:……..dahil sumisigaw ako na magdahan-dahan si Jelbert sa

pagpapatakbo ng tricycle at nasasaktan ako ay bigla na lang hinito ni Jelbert
Dayondon ang tricycle at pinababa ako kahit malayo pa sa aming bahay….”

It was clear from the above statements that respondent’s way of

negligently driving his tricycle has created fear, anxiety and injury on
his passenger, the complainant. This prompted the complainant to
request that he slows down in his driving but such request was
ignored.

1
Article 365, Revised Penal Code
2
Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 347, 357-358

2
 The right of a person using public streets and highways for travel
in relation to other motorists is mutual, coordinate and reciprocal 3. He
is bound to anticipate the presence of other persons whose rights on
the street or highway are equal to his own. 4Although he is not an
insurer against injury to persons or property5, 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.6

Suffice to say that respondent willfully and recklessly disregard

the safety of his passenger by recklessly driving his tricycle. He was
aware of the road condition as well as the fact that it was then
raining, and that her passenger is a senior citizen. But these factors
did not deter him from disregarding road safety and instead drove his
tricycle as if he was in a race. 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.7

Corollary, reckless driving is also punishable under Section 48

of Republic Act No. 4136 which states that:

“SECTION 48. Reckless Driving. – No person shall operate a motor vehicle

on any highway recklessly or without reasonable caution considering the width,
traffic, grades, crossing, curvatures, visibility and other conditions of the highway
and the conditions of the atmosphere and weather, or so as to endanger the
property or the safety or rights of any person or so as to cause excessive or
unreasonable damage to the highway.”

2. The negligence of the respondent is the proximate cause

of the complainant’s injuries

Verily, the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious

indifference of the respondent is the proximate cause of the
complainant’s injuries. Because of his reckless driving the
complainant suffered multiple physical injuries as evidenced by her
medico legal certificate.
3
Richards v. Begenstos, 21 N.W.2d 23; Hodges v. Smith, 298 S.W. 1023; Lawson v. Fordyce, 12
N.W.2d 301.
4
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Owen, 101 S.W.2d 354.
5
Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Lyon, 107 F.2d 157; Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. McKee, 121 F.2d
583. As cited in Caminor Jr vs People of the Philippines; GR No. 147437, May 8, 2009
6
Burdick v. Powell Bros. Truck Lines, 124 F.2d 694; Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Lane, 116 F.2d
264; Shipley v. Komer, 154 F.2d 861. As cited in Caminor Jr vs People of the Philippines; GR No.
147437, May 8, 2009
7
Caminor Jr vs People of the Philippines; GR No. 147437, May 8, 2009

3
 The complainant was “tossed and turned” inside the sidecar of
the tricycle due to the respondent’s indiscriminate driving, unmindful
of the humps and uneven surface of the road. As a result,
complainant suffered injury with the constant bumping of her head
and body while inside the tricycle’s sidecar.

Complainant humbly submits that revisiting the facts of the

case and the documents attached to her complaint would clearly
show that the respondent recklessly drove his tricycle and that his
negligent act was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by the
complainant.

Although complainant knows that the prosecutor has a wide

discretion in determining probable cause, he humbly believes that the
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that more likely than not the offense has been committed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2022 be set
aside and reconsidered and that a new Resolution be issued finding
probable cause to charge respondent for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Physical Injury or any criminal charge deemed
appropriate under the circumstances.

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

City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. 24 January 2023

NELLY FRANCISCO y NUNGAY

Complainant

Republic of the Philippines)

City of San Jose Del Monte)S.S.
Province of Bulacan )
x ----------------------------- x

VERIFICATION
with CERTIFICATION

4
 I, NELLY FRANCISCO y NUNGAY, Filipino, senior citizen, and
presently residing at Sitio Lambakin, Barangay Santo Cristo, City of San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, after having been duly sworn in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion and the

contents thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and belief;

3. I have not commenced any other court action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or
any other tribunal or agency: To the best of my knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency: Should I learn thereafter that
a similar action is pending, I undertake to report the same fact within
five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original
pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 24 TH

DAY of January, 2023, at the City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan,
Philippines.

NELLY FRANCISCO y NUNGAY

Affiant
Senior Citizen’s ID: 01-454-22

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 24TH day of

January, 2023, at the City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. The affiant
exhibited to me his valid government issued identification card as
competent proof of his identity.

Copy furnished:

JELBERT DAYONDON
Sitio Libis Bacood,
Brgy. Santo Cristo,
City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan