Republic of the Philippines 2 The Defendants further pray for any and all relief and

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION remedies fitting and proper under the premises.
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY City of Quezon, June 01, 2012
Branch 031

ATTY. SHU B. SAY

JUAN AYSION SANTOS, Counsel for Defendant
Plaintiff, Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. A-
-versus- CIVIL CASE No. Q-12347 123467
For: DAMAGES IBP No.A-123456
PTR No. A-1234557
JOHN CHIU CO MCLE No. A123457
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES VERIFICATION

I, JOHN CHIU CO, Filipino, of legal age, and residing at 123 Acacia St.,
Fairville, Quezon City, Metro Manila after having been duly sworn in accordance with
COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT JOHN CHIU CO, through the undersigned law, hereby depose and state that I, the defendant in the present case; caused the
counsel, and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits that: preparation of the foregoing Answer; that I have read and understood the contents
thereof and that the same are true and correct as to the best of our knowledge and
1 DEFENDANT ADMITS the allegations in paragraph 1 and
belief.
paragraph 2 of complaint insofar as they relate to their personal
circumstances;
City of Quezon, June 01, 2012
2 DEFENDANT specifically DENIES the allegations in paragraph 5
since he was given authority by JANICE DY LEE to occupy the
land.
JOHN CHIU CO
Defendant
By way of special and affirmative defenses, defendant avers: CTC No. B-124843
Issued at Quezon
1. That the obligation has been paid; City
On March 3, 2012
2. That the defendant had purchased said land from plaintiff and paid
said promissory notes;
Copy furnished:
3. That the cause of action has prescribed.
ATTY. PHOEMELA G. CRUZ
Quezon
City
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the answering defendant, most respectfully pray for REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
judgment: CITY OF MUNTINLUPA ) S.S.
1 Dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiff; and

1
 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT
I, IMELDA C. DIAZ, of legal age, Filipino, married with business
address at 25 Madrigal Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa City depose and state that:
1. I am the Manager and duly authorized representative of
Justeas Milk Tea Corporation, or Justeas for brevity, a corporation duly
organized and existing under the Philippine laws, with principal address at 25
Madrigal Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa City;
2. After having duly sworn to in accordance with law, I do
hereby accuse PACITA L. CAJAYON, cashier of Justeas Tea Shop, Alabang
Branch, of legal age with residential address at 83 Ocampo St. Las Pinas City,
where she can be served with legal processes of the crime of ESTAFA BY
MEANS OF ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE under the Revised Penal Code;
3. The submission and falsification of the sales and sales reports
from August 2015 to FEBRUARY 2016 was committed in Muntinlupa City
together with the misappropriation of the cash sales of Justeas products was
committed by the respondent in the following manner to wit:
3.1 I am the Branch Manager of Justeas Milk Tea
Corporation since 2010;
3.2 PACITA L. CAJAYON was employed by Justeas in June
4.
2014 as cashier at the Justeas Tea Shop Alabang
branch;
3.3 Respondent was assigned with cashier work at said
5.
branch together with the remittance of the sales and
submission of sales reports at the end of each week;
3.4 On DECEMBER 2015, I received verbal reports from
MARIO G. PINEDA, Branch Accountant about the
inconsistencies in the sales report despite the good
sales performance of the Alabang branch;
6.
3.5 Acting on the Information that I received from MARIO G.
PINEDA, an audit team spearheaded by MARIO G.
PINEDA was formed to conduct a thorough examination
7.
of the sales and sales report made of respondent as
branch cashier from June 2014 to February 2016;
2
3.6 Based on the Audit Report submitted by MARIO G.
PINEDA, the following were the findings to wit:
A) Upon further checking by the
undersigned (MARIO G. PINEDA) of PACITA L.
CAJAYONS sales and sale reports, there was a
significant difference between the sales on the sales
reports and the actual sales made as reported by the
other employees of the Justeas Tea Shop. Also noted
on F. Magallanes trip tickets were the absence of
products sold, which should have been stated in the
sales reports.
B) That upon checking backwards of the Alabang
branch sales reports, A TOTAL OF 5,042 cups of Milk
Teas were sold, AMOUNTING TO PHP 478,990 FROM
AUGUST 2015 TO FEBRUARY 2009, AS OPPOSED TO
WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE SALES REPORTS WHICH
ONLY REPORTED A SALE OF 3,100 CUPS WHICH
AMOUNTED TO PHP 294,500. A total of P184,490 was
in discrepancy.
On 4 March 2016, I requested respondent to explain in writing
the discrepancies in the actual sales and the sales reports submitted.
Respondent readily admitted to me her wrongdoing.
Sensing that the management would conduct further
investigations on the matter, respondent did not report for work for three day
after the confrontation. I sent her a notice to report for work together with a
demand letter sent by the company lawyer. Respondent stopped reporting to
work after the letters were sent to her. Despite the corporations efforts in trying
to locate respondent, she could not be found anymore.
Even when the notice to report to work and the demand letter
sent to the last known address of respondent, she failed and continued to refuse
to report for work to the damage and prejudice of Justeas.
Respondents acts of falsifying the sales reports to conceal the
actual sales made by Justeas Tea Shop Alabang branch by respondent and
misappropriating the undeclared cash sales in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P184,
490.00) submitted to Justeas Milk Tea Corporation in its principal office in
 Muntinlupa City and by refusing and failing to pay the same has deprived
Justeas of the use and enjoyment of said amount to its damage and prejudice.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
AFFIANTS FURTHER SAY NONE.

I, Name of the Respondent, Filipino, of legal age, with postal

address at 115 V.A. Rufino Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City, after being sworn in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
IMELDA C. DIAZ
Affiant
1. I am the respondent (hereafter referred to as Respondent) in this case for
alleged commission of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Property with Multiple Physical Injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of December

2009 at Valenzuela City.
___________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor
2. The complaint is in connection with the injuries sustained by name of the
complainant (hereafter referred to as Complainant), resulting from an accident
that happened at around 3:30 am, on June 12, 2015, along East Ave., Quezon City.
3. The complainant failed to establish all the elements of the crimes of Reckless
Imprudence as provided for by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

CERTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. On June 12, 2015, at around 3:30 in the morning, I was driving along East Avenue,
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the affiant- Quezon City, headed towards EDSA.
complainant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his
Complaint-Affidavit.
5. As I was approaching BIR Road, I was surprised when the complainant suddenly
___________________________ appeared in front of the vehicle that I am driving. I have tried to stop the vehicle but
it was already too late as the complainant was already in front of me.
Assistant City Prosecutor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 6. The complainant slammed in my windshield as a result of the impact.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY 7. I immediately brought the complainant to East Avenue Medical Center.

Name of the Complainant, 8. Before this case was filed, the complainants sister and I agreed that I will just take
Complainant, care of her medical expenses and that she will not file a case against me. The said
agreement is hereto attached as Annex 1.

Case Number 9. I honestly believe that this case filed against me must be dismissed based on the
-versus- followingto
For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage discussions:
Property with Multiple Physical Injuries

The complainant failed to establish

Name of the Respondent, all the elements of the crime of
Respondent. Reckless Imprudence defined under
x---------------------------------------------x Article 365 of the RPC.

3

10. The complainant fatally failed to establish all the elements of Reckless Imprudence
as defined under Article 365. Reckless imprudence is defined as follows:
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. xxx
Reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, 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 or 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.
xxx (Emphasis supplied)
11. In Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court enumerated the elements of
Reckless Imprudence, to wit:
The elements of reckless imprudence are: (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 his employment or occupation, degree
of intelligence, physical condition, and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In order for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Multiple
Physical Injuries, it is essential that there must have been an act that was done with
inexcusable lack of precaution.
13. In the instant case, there was no finding that I failed to exercise the necessary
precaution in driving the vehicle. As a matter of fact, the TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION REPORT 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 complainants
act of crossing the street outside the designated area was the very reason why she
4
was hit by the respondent. Besides, the greenlight was on when I accidentally hit
her.
15. It is also noteworthy that that there was no report that I was overspeeding nor was
violating any traffic rules at the time the accident happened. Complainants claim in
her SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY 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.
The evidence submitted does not
meet the required quantum of
evidence by law to establish a
prima facie case
17. In Paderanga vs Drilon , the Supreme Court stated that [t]he quantum of evidence
now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to "engender a
well founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
respondent's probable guilt thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the
presentation of such evidence only as may engender a wen grounded belief that an
offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
(Emphasis supplied)
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 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.
20. From the avobe discussion, I respectfully submit that the only course open for this
Honorable Office is to dismiss the complaint against me, for the rule is that when
at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or the
existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the
 accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting
on any person the trauma of going through a trial. (Emphasis ours) ________________________
Name of the Respondent

21. With all the foregoing, it is respectfully implored that this Honorable Office forthwith PROSECUTORS CERTIFICATION
dismiss the instant Complaint for lack of factual and legal basis.

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 2nd day of October 2015, in

22. I have caused the execution of the foregoing affidavit and do hereby to attest to the Quezon City. I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant, and am satisfied
truth of the declarations herein. that he voluntarily executed and understood this Counter-Affidavit.

Name of Prosecutor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of
Assistant CITY Prosecutor
October 2015 in Quezon City, Philippines.