Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Cebu
MICHELLE DOMINIQUE SANCHEZ
Complainant,
NPS No. VII-03-INV-151-1052
- versus RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING TO SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES UNDER ART. 365 IN
RELATION W/ ART.263 OF THE RPC
MARCIANA APAS PILAPIL
Respondent.
X -------------------------------- /
REPLY
(To Respondents Counter-Affidavit)
COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsels, unto
this Honorable Office, most respectfully states:
1. On November24, 2015, Private Complainant received the
Counter-Affidavit of respondent Marciana Pilapil (Marciana)
alleging therein that the complaint filed against her were false,
baseless, malicious, and unfounded however, her allegations were
not supported by any documentary evidence nor witnesses to
support her defense;
2. A careful perusal of the allegations made by respondent are mere
bare denials, self-serving and negative allegations,and defenses
that are bereft of any proof to substantiate the same;
3. Her affidavit clearly deserves scant consideration from this
Honorable Office, as it is elementary that, denial not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and
self-serving evidence bearing no weight in law;
4. The case of Rosalinda Punzalan et al. vs. Michael Gamaliel
J. Plata et al., G. R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013 citing
People vs. Panlilio, 255 SCRA 503, is illuminating, to wit:
"Alibi and denial are inherently weak and could not
prevail over the positive testimony of the
complainant."

5. On the contrary, private complainant not only gave positive

testimony but also substantiated her causes of action through
documentary evidence coming, not only from reputable third
party, but even from government offices such as the Philippine
National Police, Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, and Land
Transportation Office which enjoy the presumption of regularity;
6. Further, complainant is estopped from denying her liability since
the same is clear and unequivocal by her open admission at the
Land Transportation Office (LTO) that she committed reckless
driving and even paid the penalty amounting to P2,077.63;
7. It is simply contrary to human experience, logic, and common
sense for a person who believes she has no fault whatsoever, but
then personally went to the LTO fifty-five (55) days after the
incident, admitted her fault, and even paid the amount as penalty
for being at fault which caused the accident;
8. No amount of denial can save respondent from the finding of
probable cause as her self-serving and bare denials, speculations
and conjectures compose her defense and are proper and best
threshed out in a full-blown trial; In Clay& Feather Intl. Inc.
vs. Alexander & Clifford Lichaytoo, G.R. 193105, May 30,
2011, the Supreme Court ruled, viz:
The counter-allegations of respondents essentially
delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in
a full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are
built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed
out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case.
Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's
evidence in support of the charge. The presence or absence of
the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a
matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown
trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a partys
defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during
trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.
(Bold supplied for emphasis)

9. Furthermore, in Spouses Bernyl & Katherine Balangauan vs.

Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008,
the Court said:
2

The same goes for their basic denial of the acts or

omissions complained of, or their attempt at shifting the
doubt to the person of York; and their claim that witnesses of
respondent HSBC are guilty of fabricating the whole scenario.
These are matters of defense their validity needs to be
tested in the crucible of a full-blown trial. Lest it be
forgotten, the presence or absence of the elements of the
crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense,
the truth of which can best be passed upon after a fullblown trial on the merits. (Bold supplied for emphasis)

10.
The Judicial Affidavit Complaint of Complainant Michelle
Dominique Sanchez corroborated at its material points by
documentary evidence clearly and unequivocally establish
probable cause to indict Respondent Marciana of the crime of
RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING
TO
SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES under Article 365 in relation with Article
263 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating
circumstance of failure to lend help to the injured party
as against the uncorroborated mere denials, speculations,
conjectures and counter charges of respondent;
11.
In Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349, April 7,
1993, the Supreme Court ruled, thus:

We agree with respondent court that the

presence or absence of the elements of the crime
are evidentiary in nature and are matters of
defense, the truth of which can best be passed
upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.
Probable cause has been defined in the leading
case of Buchanan v. Vda. de Esteban, as the
existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of
the crime for which he was prosecuted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Prosecutor to CHARGE and INDICT respondent
MARCIANA APAS PILAPIL of the crime of RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING
TO
SERIOUS
PHYSICAL
INJURIES under Article 365 in relation with Article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstance of
failure to lend help to the injured party.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
December__, 2015. Mandaue City (for Cebu), Philippines.
DUMON FERNANDEZ & BATHAN
Counsel for the Complainants
Norkis Trading Compound
A. S. Fortuna St. 6014 Mandaue City

By:

WILBERT P. DUMON
Lifetime IBP NO. 08552/ Cebu City Chapter
Roll No. 48207
PTR NO. 5829950/ Mandaue City/ 1/6/2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009218/10-30-2012
weng72us@gmail.com

And:

AUGUST LIZER M. MALATE

IBP Member No. 1008019 5/04/2015 Cebu City
PTR No. 0525274 05/04/2015 Mandaue City
Roll of Attorney No. 63914
MCLE Compliance No.: Exempt
4

Copy furnished:

Atty. GLENN R. CANETE

Counsel for Respondent Marciana A. Pilapil
Poblacio, Lilo-an, Cebu

NOTIFICATION
The CLERK OF OFFICE
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Cebu City
Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Reply for the kind
consideration of the Honorable Prosecutor immediately upon
receipt thereof. Thank you.

WILBERT P. DUMON

AUGUST LIZER M. MALATE

EXPLANATION
Service and filing of this Reply was made through registered
mail/courier due to distance and lack of personnel to effect
personal service.

WILBERT P. DUMON

AUGUST LIZER M. MALATE