Reckless Imprudence???

[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.