This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of our classroom is a great foundation to start understanding our laws. However, the knowledge we have would be more appreciated and internalized upon experiencing the real application of these laws in the real world. Remedial law, is indeed, one of the subjects that we would appreciate more by letting us immerse into the courtrooms and be able to observe firsthand how the procedural rules of court are actually carried out. In line with this, last March 14 we went to the Regional Trial Court to observe how the presentation and examination of the witnesses are conducted. CIVIL CASES For the civil cases, we went to RTC - branch 9, under Judge Alexander Acosta. I. SPS. Alba vs Bank of Commerce & Rex Carampatana For: Enforcement of Easement of Right of Way, Etc Counsel: Atty. Dante T.Ramos..............................for plaintiff Atty. Ricarte D. Maderazo........for defendant(Rex Carampatana) Atty. Marites G. Hoisapple......for defendant(Bank of Commerce) Hearing: (Application for Preliminary Injunction)Continuation of Cross Examination of defendant Carampatana 1. When I entered the court room, the hearing for the day has already commenced. At that point in time, Atty. Ramos the counsel for the plaintiff was already conducting his cross examination against the witness-defendant. It was noticeable that Atty. Ramos was only asking leading questions to the witness but the witness would want to explain further and would even come to a point that he would argue with the lawyer already. Good thing that the judge, as the moderator of the court, would always remind the witness that he is not allowed to argue with the lawyer. On the other hand, Atty. Ramos would also remind the witness that he needs only a “Yes” or a “No” answer and
Atty. The witness confirmed that the pictures were indeed film photos and not digital. The stenographic notes have been properly utilized by Atty. photographs of the renovation of the house (30% complete) situated on the area where the enforcement of easement of right of way should have been made. 2. Ramos would like to establish in court if the witness has consistency in his testimonies and from there to be able to ascertain the truthfulness and credibility of his statements. 3. After which. where shown in court. Atty. As a prima facie correct statement of the proceedings conducted in all of the previous hearings of the instant case. a leading question is not allowed during examination of a witness. the rules of court provided that cross examination is one of the exceptions of this rule. Evidently. when it was taken. they were marked as exhibits during the proceedings. He further asked who took the pictures. Ramos would always go back to the transcript every time he would ask a question to the witness. Atty. It was funny though because the projector used to show the power point slides of the photos was brought by the witness himself and was not even owned by the court. Indeed. However. An object Evidence.that the witness would have his turn to explain during his re-direct examination with his counsel. . Generally. Ramos during his examination. the original photos presented in court were enough already as object evidence provide they be authenticated in a manner states above. the cross examination that he made followed the rules stating that it would only pertain to issues raised during the direct examination of the witness. including the direct examination of the witness. I then realized that it was not necessary to have the photos projected in power point slides anymore. what was used to take the picture and he then asked the defendant to produce the original copies of the photos which were attached in the pleadings of the defendant. Ramos questioned if the pictures where not digital or electronic.
authentication of the document was made by ascertaining the signature of the witness on it and that it was a sworn . Jonnah John Ungab. However. that was put to the witness stand. And so.4. Ramos objected on the motion made by the defendant and the judge initially sustained the objection.. the witness is already available and the re-direct will only cover the questions made in the cross examinations. SPS.. II. It was the turn of the defendant’s counsel to make his redirect examination. The court ordered for the defendant to submit the judicial affidavit of the witness before the next hearing... Ramos asked the court for the defendant to submit the judicial affidavit of the witness 5 days before the next hearing.. This time.. Maricar Suico Le... the judge allowed him to check on the transcripts but not to talk to his client. the defendant insisted that he would not be able to make his re-direct because he is not really prepared. he might not be able to cover the full points that he would need to cover.. et al For: Accion Reinvidicatoria and Damages Counsel: Atty... On the other hand..for Plaintiff Atty. Maderazo moved for a postponement of the re-direct because according to him he was not paying attention to the questions made during the cross examination.. The judicial affidavit was manifested in court.. was more on the use of judicial affidavit of the witness.for Defendant Hearing: Pre-trial 1. the defendant asked again if it would be okay to give him even just 10 minutes to talk to his client and check on the transcripts.... Eventually... Pica.. Therefore... it was a direct examination conducted on the witness. That being said..... the judge just over ruled the objection of the plaintiff and moved to the next hearing the re-direct of the witness.. Unfortunately... The highlight on this hearing as regards to the presentation and examination of witnesses. there would be no need to ask for a postponement of hearing. The witness...... Atty..... The judge ruled that... Masaganda vs SPS. Atty. was also the plaintiff...... Atty...
I remembered our lesson in class as regards to admission against interest. 3. it was marked as exhibit. The plaintiff’s lawyer would want to confirm which of the statement is true and make it sure that her client’s memory recall would point to what is stated in the affidavit which is 1995. the requirement on the record of the proceedings that transpired during the time that the affidavit was made was not presented. Ramos conducted his cross. was also confirming that all the statements in the affidavit was made by the witness based on her personal knowledge. Atty. the plaintiff seemingly admitted already that the lot was still not yet hers when the defendants occupied the lot already. 4. Ungab was not really using leading questions. Upon hearing this. there was a question asked by Atty. the judicial affidavit was admitted in court. Ungab had a re-cross examination on the witness again. Atty. The witness answered. In answer to the re-direct of the plaintiff. It was just a confirmation on the statements that the witness had on the affidavit. unless the title is given to me already”. After that. Consequently. there was no stenographic notes nor copy of the recordings presented. After which. Ungab. the . She then kept repeating the year 1994 afterwards. Ungab was more geared on letting the witness explain to the court why things happened. There was an inconsistency on the date as to when the witness-plaintiff had knowledge thereof. The counsel of the plaintiff. Atty. Le conducted a re-direct examination and at the same time a rehabilitation on the testimony of her client. The other party. Would this be an application of an admission against interest made in open court? Herein. The counsel wanted to establish the date of awareness as to when the plaintiff had knowledge that the land in dispute was already occupied by the defendants. the witness was confused. however. did not object. she had it in her affidavit year 1995 but her answers to her counsel kept on switching from 1995 to 1994 and to 1995 again. In comparison with how Atty. This time. Atty. Le. 2. Apparently. There was one thing that I have observed though. A cross examination was also conducted by the opposing counsel. “ Because I will not fence a land that is not mine yet. Ungab as to why the witness did not fence the property she allegedly bought. here Atty. Atty.statement under oath.
. People Vs Medalla (detained) For: Violation of Sec 11... City Prosecutor Mario Gidayawan. we barely can understand what they were talking about.. The voices of the lawyers cannot be heard.. CRIMINAL CASES We have made our observation on the criminal cases in the sala of Judge Hadjirasul. People Vs Tumulak and Salvador (detained) For: Violation of Sec 5... He was even passionate in explaining his side during the cross but.... This was such a great disappointment on the how Atty...... his counsel was just not paying attention.. Gladys Barriga..... The following are the cases that we have observed: I. Unto the first civil case...... Art II of RA9165 Counsel: Asst.....for Prosecution Atty.. I pitied the defendant because of the incompetency of his counsel. I tried to recollect all that just transpired in the court hearings......examination on the witness was concluded... Maderzo behaved inside the court ..for Accussed Hearing: Initial Presentation of Evidence for the Prosecution I. RTC... Art II of RA9165 Counsel: Asst. City Prosecutor Mario Gidayawan..Branch 7...for Accussed Hearing: Initial Presentation of Evidence for the Prosecution CONCLUSION After stepping out of the Regional Trial Court.. Gladys Barriga.. we still continued to observed and hoped to learn how examination of witnesses are conducted in criminal cases.. Nevertheless... ironically........ The way the court hearing was conducted was not really conducive for observers like us.. No more re-direct was conducted by the plaintiff......for Prosecution Atty. It was a great experience indeed and a reality check of what the what the future would be after we become lawyers and be part of the legal practice........
Nonetheless. I must admit that this time around. rather I was more attentive to the substance of how the court proceedings were conducted. Although. The affidavit would even be more prone to error and would invite inconsistencies on the testimonies of the witnesses. I believe it was done fairly as well. when in fact all the questions can be asked directly in court in the same way in is stated in the affidavit. It was like having in motion pictures the lessons that we have learned in class and watching them in action really firsthand. Ramos conducted his cross examination. I realized that the use of judicial affidavit may even delay the court proceedings. . As to how Judge Acosta carried out the proceedings. What the counsel did was just to read and repeat all that was stated in the judicial affidavit of the witness. our court visit was more meaningful.room. as stated in the rules of court. On the other hand. The judicial affidavit is just a duplicity of the works to be done in preparation for the hearing. I was confused why he eventually allowed the postponement of the re-direct of the witness even if the witness was already available and it would only pertain to questions raised in the cross examinations. as to what happened in the second case. There was depth already in understanding the totality of the judicial system. the proceedings was a great help for us in understanding how witnesses are to be examined and presented in court. I was not looking on the physical structure of the courts anymore. I was impressed by the way Atty. As regards to the second civil case.