Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Second Judicial Region
Santiago City
Branch 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 12-93
-versus- For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting
In Homicide and Damage to
BOGART DELA PENA, Property
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Private complainant, through private prosecutor, unto the Honorable Court, most
respectfully states THAT:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against
him on the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with
it the extinction of the civil liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.

This is a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and

Damage to Property filed against accused Bogart Dela Pena. The latter being the driver of
a Galloper II vehicle bearing plate number BDP 268, through reckless, careless and
imprudent manner manage to drive said vehicle and it collided with a Suzuki motorcycle
bearing plate number 4160 BP driven by Roselito Bautista and as a result thereof suffered
Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to Intracranial Hemorrhage secondary to vehicular
accident which resulted to the instantaneous death of the latter. Upon arraignment the
accused pleaded Not Guilty. Trial ensued and the Honorable Court in its Decision dated
January 18, 2019, acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

 On February 08, 2019, private complainant personally received a copy of the
Decision in the above-mentioned case promulgated by this Honorable Court acquitting
the accused of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property. The
dispositive portion of said Decision read as follows:

“WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused Bogart Dela Pena y Baduca
is hereby acquitted of the crime charged against him.”

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it has fifteen (15) days or until February
23, 2019 to file a Motion for Reconsideration. However, February 23, 2019 falls on a
Saturday, thus private complainant has until the next working day, February 26, 2019 to
file the Motion;

Therefore, the filing of this Motion for Reconsideration;

GROUNDS FOR FILING OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

It is private complainant’s humble position that the Honorable Court committed

serious error when it renders the above-mentioned decision acquitting the accused
WITHOUT pronouncement as to the civil liability;

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the civil liability arising
from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately1. The
reason for the implied institution of the criminal action is the law that, every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable2;

Generally, a criminal case has two (2) aspects, the criminal and civil. The purpose
of the criminal aspect is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from
committing the same, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.
Civil aspect of a criminal case on the other hand is for the resolution, reparation or
indemnification of the private offended partyfor the damage or injury he sustained 3.
Private complainant will not disturb the acquittal of the accused of the crime charge.

1
Sec. 1, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
2
Article 100, RPC
3
Ricarze vs. CA. G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007
 When the Information was filed against accused Bogart Dela Cruz for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and the Damage to property, the civil liability arising
from the offense charged is also deemed instituted. The civil action is deemed instituted
in the criminal case because the criminal Information alleged that the victim Roselito
Bautista sufferedIntracranial Hemorrhage, an injury which is the result of the incident;

Private complainant is not schooled or familiar with legal processes so he did not
make any express reservation to institute a separate civil action for recovery of civil
liability, much more, waives the civil action. He just allow the public prosecutor
prosecute the case;

The caption in the Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide

and Damage to Property does not attach/include the word AND DAMAGES after the
word Property and the body of the Information does not allege damages, the private
complainant is not precluded to recover civil damages arising from the negligent act of
the accused. The civil liability maybe claimed in the criminal action even if there is no
specific allegation of damages in the complaint or information4. The fact that the victim
suffered injuries as a result of the incident and later died is enough that civil liability can
be claimed against the accused;

The acquittal of an accused of the crime charged, however, does not necessarily
extinguish his civil liability. Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different
effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the
accused is not the author of the actor omission complained of. This instance closes the
door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act
or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which
may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is
the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an
acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the
guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only5;

The testimony of private complainant Fidel Bautista identified the accused as

Bogart Dela Pena, who bumped the motorcycle being driven by his son. The incident
causes the demise of his son Roseo Bautista. He was able to prove the expenses they
incurred during the wake and funeral of his son. They spent a total of P 301, 103.19 as
expenses including the repair of the motorcycle. This expense was supported by receipts
which they offered as documentary evidence to the Honorable Court. The accused,
through his counsel did not file their objection or comment to the formal offer of this

4
Roa vs. Dela Cruz, 107 Phil. 8

5
Daluraya vs. Oliva. G.R. No. 210148,December 8, 2014
evidence in court The counsel for the accused also waive the conduct of cross-
examination to the testimony of Fidel Bautista6. These acts of the accused through his
counsel are admission. On the other hand, the prosecution clearly o establish the civil
liability of the accused through the testimony of Fidel Bautista and the documents he
submitted in court;

In case of an acquittal, the Rules of Court requires that the judgment state
"whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the
judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might
arise did not exist.7"

The Decision of the Honorable Court dated January 18, 2019 in the above-
mentioned case acquitted the accused of criminal liability but is silent as to the civil
liability. This is contrary to the Rule. A closer look at the trial court's decision shows that
the judgment of acquittal did not clearly and categorically declare the non-existence of
petitioner's negligence or imprudence. The decision did not discount the possibility that
the accused was really negligent. The acquittal of the accused was predicated on the
conclusion that his guilt had not been established with moral certainty, it is an acquittal
based on reasonable doubt; hence, civil liability to enforce for the same act or omission
lies.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed for of this Honorable Court the

decision dated January 18, 2019 be RECONSIDERED.

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

Jones, Isabela for Santiago City, Isabela, February 26, 2019.

ATTY. MAGITING M. GUITANGNA

Private Prosecutor

6
TSN of the case of PP vs. B. Dela Cruz dated March 20, 2018, page 4
7
Sec. 2,Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
 Roll No. _______
PTR No. 10793692/ 01- 03-19/Isabela
IBP Receipt No. 043019/05-17-2018
MCLE Comp. No. V-0005915/10-01-2018
MCLE is valid until April 14, 2022
[email protected]/ 0905-866-9095

The Clerk of Court

Branch 1, MTCC
Santiago City

Please include in the calendar for HEARING on March 04, 2019 at 9:00 o’clock in
the morning the foregoing Motion for the approval of the Honorable Court without
further oral argument. Thank you.

MAGITING M. GUITANGNA

NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY. ____________________________
Counsel for the Accused
Public Attorney Office
Hall of Justice, San Andres, Santiago City

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion shall be HEARD on March 04, 2019
at 9:00 o’clock in the morning for the approval of the Honorable Court after oral
argument.

MAGITING M. GUITANGNA

Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. __________________________
Counsel for the Accused
Public Attorney’s Office
Hall of Justice, San Andres, Santiago City
PROSEC. ______________________
Public Prosecutor for Branch 1, MTCC
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, San Andres, Santiago City

EXPLANATION:

A copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was duly furnished the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor and Public Attorney’s Office, Santiago City via registered
mail pursuant to Section 7 & 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court due to distance, time and
expense to effect personal service.

MAGITING M. GUITANGNA