Reckless Imprudence???

[kxc91]

Really need some advice..
A friend of mine hit another car last december, damaged the door but no injuries. My friend has full-coverage insurance so payment of the damages should not have been a problem but the other party would not present a certificate of no claim from his own insurance so he could not claim payment from my friend's insurance. So this guy filed a Reckless Imprudence case against my friend last March. Thing is, my friend has already migrated to another country and won't back for quite a while. The insurance assured her that they would handle it, so dapat ok na right? but then last night her family got a Resolution to the case that said my friend did not file counter affidavit and should pay bail(?) amounting to 100k++
Should this still be handled by the insurance, or should she get some other lawyer? does this mean that she can go to jail or what? I thinks this really got out of hand. I think guy really wanted to milk this for all its worth

[lma1911]

Gosh! I thought that when you filed a police reports, (Pay the Police for filing the case) Your insurance will take care of it. I think this is a good post.

[larpit09]

Your lady friend should have filed an affidavit.
Bail should be posted, so she won't be arrested when she comes back.
You now need a lawyer.

[leolop]

without going to the merits of the case, these are my thoughts. (di pa ako lawyer, ha)

reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property is a crime that is punishable by a fine up to 3x the value of the value of the property. there is no jail time.

the resolution that the family received is probably a resolution from the prosecutor's office that they've found reason to believe an offense has been committed and a criminal charge should be filed. the bail figure might be just a recommended amount. yung judge ang may final say kung magkano dapat.

i'm not sure what the contractual agreement is with the insurance company when it comes to this situation (check the contract), but definitely she can't escape the charge on the sole basis that she has comprehensive insurance.

but here are some suggested courses of action:

1. if your friend is in another country then the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over her and the case can not continue. i really doubt if they'd even extradite her over this. it's not the best thing, but she can choose to do nothing about it.

2. the best thing is to get her own lawyer to represent her. unfortunately, this will entail cost. any decent lawyer can have this case dismissed if he can show the court that the damages can be shouldered by the insurance company.

3. you can talk to the insurance company. it is in their interest to resolve this because they may be liable for whatever fine and damages that may be awarded by the court if the case continues. they might agree to use their own lawyer to represent her in the case.

from a bargaining stand point, i think if the complainant realizes that the accused is no longer in the country then they'd think twice about continuing the case dahil wala na yung hinahabol nila.

the request by your friend's insurance company for a certificate of non-claim is a reasonable one to avoid a double compensation for 1 accident from 2 insurance companies. sana dapat ginawa na lang ito nung kabilang party. affidavit lang naman ito.

[kxc91]

Thanks leolop! you've really cleared things up
Glad to know there's no jail time whew! I think her family will try with the insurance company first for representation. Hope it works out. Thanks again!

[Tailhook]

there is no bail for reckless imprudence cases resulting to damage to property since the maximum imposable penalty is only a fine.

once the case is filed in court, no warrant of arrest can be issued for the same reason.

your friend should not worry. at most, he will pay a fine. but nevertheless, tell him to hire a lawyer, the complainant might inflate his claim and your friend might be required to pay more than the damage he caused.

[kxc91]

hi Tailhook, i'll definitely tell her your advice.

You guys have been really helpful. Thanks all!

[Galactus]

Sorry ha, I'm not trying to flame, but I don't think the guy wants to milk your friend. I would do the same if I were in his shoes, kasi from your post, it's quite obvious that your friend was at fault, and he hasn't been compensated for the damage

To add insult to injury, umalis pa ng bansa and the excuse "let the insurance company handle it" is just so lame. Kawawa naman yung tao, hindi naman nya kasalanan, tinakasan pa.

Being a civil case, no warrant of arrest can be issued, which is why I'm wondering why bail is required. Maybe a judgment (resolution) has already been issued, ordering your friend to pay damages. Actually, maliit pa yung 100,000 (kung resolution nga), kasi normally may actual and exemplary damages pa na ina-award, aside from the costs of suit, which must be shouldered by the losing side. No offense, ha? Pero during these instances, I always picture myself if I were on the other side's shoes to arrive at an objective reasoning

[kxc91]

hi Galactus, no offense taken. I understand the guy's need for compensation, but what I don't understand is why he has file the case in the first place since the insurance was willing to compensate, and in fact, according to the insurance, the check was already prepared, but was not claimed.

About "letting the insurance handle it" part, I don't think it was an excuse. After the accident my friend even personally accompanied the guy to the her insurance's place for assesment of damage, etc... then after that its in the insurance's hands, right? Isn't that how most people handle these incidents? thats what insurance is for right? i might be wrong though since never had experience with this before.

[OTEP]

Baka naman gusto nun mag-double claim kaya ayaw maglabas ng quit claim.

[swimstroke]

Hehe, mukhang may ibang nasa nga kasi hindi naman nagkulang yung friend mo according to you post. Kung may habol pa, habulin niyo kahit may gastos para matauhan yung kabila.

[Tailhook]

all we can do is just to speculate on the reasons why he or she had to file a case. but one thing is for sure, most if not all litigants claim damages more than what is due. plus, why file a case when the insurance company was willing to pay? sounds weird to me. kaya i concluded that he/she was just trying to get more than what is due knowing that the other party's negligence/fault is clear.

[Red Bureau]

Hakuna matata... no worries!! First, you should ask your friend to ask the court for a re-investigation since your friend was not able to file a counter-affidavit before the fiscal. Usually naman it is granted. Syempre, you need a lawyer for that. Then during the preliminary investigation before the fiscal, ayusin nyo na lang kung magkano damage para ma withdraw na yung charges before the MTC. Definitely, the complainant is only looking for the money, nothing more, nothing less. Kung agreeable na kayo, the complainant will just execute an affidavit of desistance, but make it sure that the payment should be done in court before the judge during the hearing specifically scheduled for that purpose.

[Walter]

There's more than what meets the eye here. There must be a personal or other reason as to why the other party filed a case if it were just a simple vehicular mishap.

[tsupermario]

aside from the 100k+ bail, also note that the first post only mentions reckless imprudence.

[leolop]

one common reason in filing a criminal case is so that you don't have to hire your own lawyer (prosecutor na ang lawyer mo). ang balita bwisit ang mga korte sa mga nagfi-file ng bouncing check at estafa cases dahil ginagawa ang korte na collection agency. pagmabayaran na, hayun iiwanan na yung kaso.

actual damages would be a minimum to be paid by a guilty party in a case of reckeless imprudence resulting in damage to property. other damages are not mandatory and in most instances awarded only when the crime is attended by bad faith. the fine is based on the discretion of the judge.

in cases of reckless imprudence, there is an absence of malice so bad faith has to be duly proven. if it's true that all possible arrangements were taken so that the injured party could claim (to the point that they were accompanied by the accused to the insurance company and that a check was prepared), then it would be pretty difficult to prove bad faith as a basis for damages.

not all forms of imprudence can be considered reckless. recklessnesss implies a wanton disregard of safety such as overtaking on curves or from the right side, running a red light, or tailgaiting at high speed. this is contrasted with simple imprudence such as when rear ending a car in front who made a sudden stop because a car cut in front of him.

in simple imprudence, one is only liable for the actual damages but cannot be convicted for the crime. medyo ot dahil wala akong alam sa facts of the accident pero baka makatulong sa mga tsikoteers. and i'm giving text book material; di factor yung tipong kakuntsaba ang prosecutor.

[konde]

Baka naman gusto nun mag-double claim kaya ayaw maglabas ng quit claim.

baka pinsan ni doc otep yan.

[CLAVEL3699]

malamang ayaw nya yung halaga na binibigay nang insurance naliliitan yun. kaya nga file nang case at hindi kinuha ang check nya sa insurance.

[Galactus]

one common reason in filing a criminal case is so that you don't have to hire your own lawyer (prosecutor na ang lawyer mo). ang balita bwisit ang mga korte sa mga nagfi-file ng bouncing check at estafa cases dahil ginagawa ang korte na collection agency. pagmabayaran na, hayun iiwanan na yung kaso.

For BP22 & Estafa cases, most complainants hire private counsels, whose spiels during the courtroom hearings are already standard: "Atty. So-and-So, acting under the direct guidance and supervision of the prosecutor."

But I've attended too many hearings over several years to know that the these prosecutors do practically nothing, and the private counsels do all the work (pre-marking of evidence, direct exam, cross, re-direct, cross, etc). I have yet to attend a hearing wherein a prosecutor actively participates, or wherein a complainant relies on the prosecutor as full-time counsel.

The reality is that for these cases, kawawa ang complainant. I don't think nabi-bwisit ang korte, kasi they can always refer the case to mediation. Kami, we have cases filed against certain individuals in 2002, until now hearing pa rin. Yung ibang napanalunan namin (Sum of Money cases), hindi ma-execute yung writ, kasi nanghihingi ng padulas yung sheriff. Kaya nga for those intending to use the courts as a collection agency will be in for a big surprise.

Also, the payment need NOT be done in court before the judge, it can be done anytime before rendering the verdict, but the lawyer has to manifest formally before the judge in a hearing that a settlement has been reached and an affidavit of desistance has been filed. Anyway, kung matino naman yung pagkagawa ng desistance, if the other party does not comply, the provisions contained therein becomes immediately executory.