REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 76, QUEZON CITY

BELEN M. BAYONETA,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. Q-

1170522

GERTRUDES LORENZO and

JONEL ARROSAS,
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x

OBJECTION/COMMENTS
(To Formal Offer of Evidence dated November 2, 2017
of Defendant Gertrudes S. Lorenzo)

Plaintiff, by counsel, to this Honorable Court,

by way of Objection and Comments to the Formal
Offer of Evidence dated November 2, 2017 1 filed by
Defendant Gertrudes S. Lorenzo, respectfully avers:

1.Exhibit “6” and its submarkings (Exhibits “6-

A” to “6-G”) is inadmissible in evidence for being
hearsay in view of the following:
a.The Judicial Affidavit2 of Pinky Agaid dated
May 3, 2013 is in violation of Section 3(f)
of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-
8-8-SC. The notarial certificate is
incomplete and with unfilled blank spaces
supposedly for the affiant’s competent
evidence of identity. Worse, during the
cross-examination of Pinky Agaid, the
witness tried to belatedly prove that she
presented her identification to the notary
1
Received by Plaintiff on December 11, 2017.

2
Denominated by the Defendant as “MALAYANG SALAYSAY SA KORTE.”

1
 public on May 3, 2013. Unfortunately, upon
examination by plaintiff’s counsel of said
identification, the same showed that said
identification was issued on June 5, 2015.
Apparently, the obvious intention was to
mislead and correct an incomplete and
ineffective judicial affidavit. Witness
Pinky Agaid could not and is impossible to
have presented said identification issued on
June 5, 2015 to the notary public on May 3,
2013. In addition, the judicial affidavit of
Pinky Agaid should not be given any credence
or weight for being self-serving and
uncorroborated.
b.The judicial affidavit of Pinky Agaid which
was presented in lieu of her direct
testimony is non-compliant with the
requirements provided in A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
and renders the same as inadmissible in
evidence.
c.The Judicial Affidavit of Pinky Agaid is
also in violation of the following
provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice:
a.Sec. 12, Rule II, for notarizing the
judicial affidavit in the absence of the
required competent evidence of identify;
b.Section 2, Rule IV on the prohibitions to
perform a notarial act.
c.Sec. 5(b) of Rule III, for notarizing an
incomplete certificate.

Independent of the admissibility or weight of

evidence of the judicial affidavit of Pinky Agaid,
Notary Public Atty. Rodel R. Morta clearly violated
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court has
consistently penalized notaries public for
violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice.

2.The document “Complaint-Affidavit” executed by

Arlen M. Bayoneta executed on September 28, 2011

2
before Asst. City Prosecutor Bernardina D. Santos
which is being tendered in evidence by Defendant
Lorenzo has already been denied admission in an
Order dated 24 October 2017.

Nevertheless, even if admitted, the tendered

document and the accompanying attachment thereof is
an incompetent evidence to prove that plaintiff’s
damage could not have reached Php500,000.00 merely
on account of a visual examination of the pictures
of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The damages therefore
on plaintiff’s vehicle in the amount of
Php429,005.00 remains unrebutted.

In fact, stripped of the technical rules on

evidence and procedure, the documents being
tendered in evidence are actually and inherently
damaging to the Defendants. By offering the
documents executed by plaintiff’s daughter, Arlen
Bayoneta in this case, defendants are admitting the
truth of the allegations contained in the following
paragraphs which reads:

“2. On September 23, 2011 at around 12:00

o’clock noon, I was driving my vehicle, BMW
with Plate No. ARL 518, travelling along
Tandang Sora,Avenue, going to Quezon City
Memorial Circle.

3. On that day and time, I was traversing the

outer lane of Tandang Sora Avenue, turning
right going to Quezon City Memorial Circle,
when suddenly my vehicle was bumped at the
driver side door by a Hyundai H100 with plate
No. PIN 783, registered in the name of
Gertrudes S. Lorenzo, which was then driven by
respondent JONEL ARROSAS y SANCHEZ, causing
substantial damage to my vehicle.

4. Worst, instead of stopping his driven

vehicle, respondent Jonel Arrosas Y Sanchez,
however, forced his way out from the accident

3
 position by maneuvering his vehicle back and
forth causing my vehicle to jerk and be
dragged, thus, inflicting more damage on the
front wheel suspension and underchassis of my
vehicle.

5. After getting out from the accident

position, respondent attempted to escape by
driving his vehicle away from the scene of the
accident. Fortunately, a group of traffic
enforcers stationed at a nearly MMDA post saw
what happened and chased and stopped
respondent from escaping.”

The foregoing allegations merely strengthened

plaintiff’s evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim
that the damages sustained amounted to
3
Php429,005.00. By relying on mere visual
examination of the picture of plaintiff’s vehicle,
Defendants have failed to dispute and contradict
plaintiff’s evidence that the damage to plaintiff’s
vehicle amounted to Php429,005.00. Thus, plaintiff
has proven its case by preponderance of evidence.4

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that an
Order be issued as follows:

1.That the judicial affidavit of Pinky Agaid

dated 03 May 2013 denominated as “Malayang
Salaysay sa Korte” be denied admission for
being in gross violations of A.M. No. 12-8-8-
SC and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;
2.To admit the tendered documents, namely:
a.Complaint-Affidavit of Arlen M. Bayoneta
dated 28 September 2011;

3
Plaintiff’s Exhibits “D” to “D-2”; Exhibit “E”; Exhibit “O” and “O-1”

4
Section 1, Rule 133, Rules on Evidence, Rules of Court.

4
 b.Traffic Accident Report Form dated September
23, 2011 conducted by PO3 Nicanor Benito T.
Joven. This document is marked in evidence
as plaintiff’s Exhibit “A.”
c.Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jonel Arosas. This
document is marked in evidence as
plaintiff’s Exhibit “B” but was denied
admission in an Order dated 7 November 2016.
With the tender of evidence, Plaintiff’s
Exhibit “B” must likewise be ADMITTED;
d.Cost Estimate issued by Autohaus BMW on
plaintiff’s vehicle in the total amount of
Php429,005.00. This document is marked in
evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit “D.”
e.The attached Pictures showing the damaged
vehicle of plaintiff and the picture showing
defendant’s vehicle.

Other reliefs and remedies as may be just and

equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

20 December 2017, Quezon City, Metro Manila.

JOSE VILLANUEVA CABRERA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Suite 601, 6th Floor, Bldg. A, Victoria Towers
No. 79 Panay Avenue, corner Timog Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. 355-0922/Cel No. 0917-8527407
Roll No. 37387, IBP Lifetime No. 05671 issued
on 07 February 2006
MCLE Compliance No. V-0012325, 08 December 2015
PTR NO. 3803236C, 04 Jan 2017, Q.C.
Email: joevcabrera@yahoo.com

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. WILFREDO M. SANTOS Reg. Receipt No.

LAZARO TUAZON SANTOS & ASSOCIATES Posted at ______
LAW OFFICES on 21 Dec.

5
2017
Counsel for the Defendant
Gertrudes Lorenzo
No. 1, Central Avenue, New Era
Diliman, Quezon City

ATTY. GENE EDWARD DC. LOPEZ Reg. Receipt No.

Counsel for Defendant Jonel S. Arrosas Posted at
____
No. 1 Central Avenue, New Era on 21 Dec.
2017
Diliman, Quezon City

- By Registered Mail –

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Objection/Comments are

being served upon the defendants through counsels
for lack of available messenger to effect personal
service.

JOSE VILLANUEVA CABRERA