Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

10th Judicial Region
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4251-18

Plaintiff,

-versus- FOR: RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

RESULTING TO SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES

PATRICIO OCON y PEJO,

Accused.
x -----------------------------------------/

REJOINDER
(ON THE COMMENT CUM OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO RELEASE MOTOR
VEHICLE)

COMES NOW, Movant JOEL P. EUSABIA, assisted by the undersigned

counsels, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Rejoinder and
avers that:

1. On April 02, 2018, the undersigned received the FORMAL ENTRY OF

APPEARANCE AS PRIVATE PROSECUTORS WITH COMMENT CUM OBJECTION
TO THE MOTION TO RELEASE MOTOR VEHICLE filed by counsels of the Private
Complainant;

2. Movant JOEL P. EUSABIA is engaged in the trucking business for ______

years now, operating in Davao City and in other places in Mindanao ;

3. The movant respectfully prays that the motor vehicle be released as

physical evidence pending trial of the case.

4. Movant maintains that as of the moment, there is no need to impound the

said motor vehicle. In fact, an Affidavit of Undertaking was already executed by
the movant, pictures were already made part of the records and lastly,
photocopy of the Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration were already
attached to the motion;
 5. The movant, with all good faith, undertakes to produce the said vehicle in
the event that it will be needed by this Honorable Court in the course of the
proceedings, without making necessary repairs thereon;

6. With all due respect, it is illogical for the authorities to retain custody of the
motor vehicle especially so that it was not yet offered as physical evidence of
the crime. It is yet dispensable to the proceedings, pending trial;

7. Truth to tell, it has already been almost three (3) months now that the said
vehicle was impounded at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID),
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon without earning any income. It is also worthy to note
that during the incident involving the injured and the accused, the said motor
vehicle was faithfully doing a legal business. It was then transporting
agricultural products going to ______________;

8. In the interest of justice, the continued impounding of the vehicle has

directly deprived the movant to earn a living;
9. Additionally, such impounding, needless to say, would further cause the
vehicle’s deterioration beyond repair;

10. As positively confirmed by private complainants, an immediate financial

assistance was given by the insurer of the movant in favor of the injured in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php. 100,00.00). It goes to show that
indeed the movant has not in any way abandoned nor neglected the injured and
the situation itself;

11. Further, in the case of Olimpio Pangonorom and Metro Manila Transit
Corporation Vs. People Of The Philippines1, the Supreme Court ruled:

The subsidiary liability of the employer arises only after conviction

of the employee in the criminal action. In the present case, there exists
an employer-employee relationship between petitioners, the MMTC is
engaged in the transportation industry, and Olimpio has been adjudged
guilty of a wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties. However, there is no proof here of Olimpios
insolvency. The judgment of conviction against Olimpio has not attained
finality. This being so, no writ of execution can issue against him to
satisfy his civil liability. Only after proof of the accused-employees
insolvency may the subsidiary liability of his employer be enforced.
In short, there is as yet no occasion to speak of enforcing
the employers subsidiary civil liability unless it appears that
the accused-employees primary liability cannot in the first
instance be satisfied because of insolvency. This fact cannot be
1 G.R. No. 143380. April 11, 2005
 known until some time after the verdict of conviction shall
have become final. And even if it appears prima facie that
execution against the employee cannot be satisfied, execution
against the employer will not issue as a matter of course.
(Emphasis supplied)

12. Hence, in the event that the accused, after trial, be convicted, and found
to be insolvent, only then will the employer-movant be subsidiarily liable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed before this Honorable Court

that after trial on the merit, judgment be rendered as follows:

1. That the motor vehicle above-mentioned be released in favor of the movant.

2. Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises are also
prayed for.

Malaybalay City, April 10, 2007.

ESTRADA ESTRADA RUBIO-ZAMORA LLESIS COLLADO LAW OFFICE

G/F Estrada Bldg., Don Carlos., St., Malaybalay City
Landline No. 813-5446

By:

ATTY. BURT M. ESTRADA

Roll of Attorneys No. 53037
TIN: 945-905-316
PTR No. 5406804; 12-16-2016; Malaybalay City
 IBP No. 1040129; 12-05-2016; Bukidnon
MCLE Compliance No. III-0003073; issued on April 21, 2009
MCLE Compliance No. IV-002862; issued on October 3, 2011
MCLE Compliance No. V-0008400; issued on June 15, 2015
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0001659; issued on January 30, 2017

ATTY. CARMILA CLAUDETTE BON BAGAY

P-2 Poblacion, Lantapan, Bukidnon
Roll No. 67124/ May 23, 2017
IBP No. 005277/ May 18, 2017; Bukidnon
PTR No. 6212415/ June 23, 2017; Malaybalay City
Lantapan, Bukidnon
Exempted from compliance with MCLE for the year 2017

Copy furnished:
ATTY. MARCO R. HINLO
HINLO VALDEZ & ASSOCIATES
Recina Ancestral Home
Corner Moreno, Magsaysay Sts.
Malaybalay City