Mariline Lee E-PRACTICUM V

Judge Jean Marie A. Villena

LLB4401

CRITIQUE FOR CRIMINAL CASE MOCK TRIAL

Day 2
Moot court trial hones students skills in litigation and this was clearly manifested by
the two groups tasked to litigate the criminal case as it was apparent from their
performance that they prepared well for each of the task they were called to do. In
fact, they seemed to be more active in prosecuting and or defending their case as
compared to those actual hearings we observed during our court visits. However,
here are a few glitches noted during the trial:

In actual court hearings, the court interpreter only translates the questions in
Tagalog when the witness could not comprehend the questions in English
propounded by the examining counsel and not each time a question is asked
though it is obvious that the witness understands the question. The court
interpreter, however, should always translate the answer of the witness from
Tagalog to English so as to facilitate stenography. These were not observed by

the groups.
The counsels from both parties forgot to formally offer the testimony of the

witnesses as required by Section 35 Rule 132.

One of the defense counsels failed to observe Section 3 Rule 132 as she was
badgering the witness when she made the follow-up questions Oh, really???? Is

it???? but the counsel made belated objection thereto.

There was failure to comply with Section 10 Rule 132 as counsels from both
parties made leadings questions during direct examination when instead of
making the witness identify the documentary evidence, it was the counsel who
would identify it and the witness would just assent to such.

Mariline Lee E-PRACTICUM V

Judge Jean Marie A. Villena

LLB4401

Irrelevant question was asked by the defense counsel when he propounded to

the witness You were only 40 years old but why were you promoted already to
SPO3? but this was not objected to as provided in Section 3(1) Rule 132).

Day 3

On the third day of trial, the misdemeanor of the counsels for the prosecution was
very apparent as one was not sitting properly while the other was occasionally
laughing during the session. As counsels, they should observe the proper decorum
in the court room not only because they guardians of the law but because they must
give due respect the Judge. The following are the glitches noted during the trial:

Hypothetical question was asked by the defense counsel by using Barack

Obama as an example but this was not objected by the prosecution. Section
36, Rule 130 provides that a witness testimony is only confined to his

personal knowledge.
The counsel for the defendant had first offered the testimony of the witness
before asking for his or her personal circumstances. Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court provides that the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to
testify. It is important to first ascertain the identity of the person to testify under

oath before his or her testimony could be offered as evidence.

It is essential that the court interpreter must be attentive during the proceeding
so as to notify the court whenever there is a document to be shown to the
witness for verification in order to be properly recorded.

Day 4

Mariline Lee E-PRACTICUM V

Judge Jean Marie A. Villena

LLB4401

Though it was the fourth day for the criminal case, the Clerk of Court still
seemed unfamiliar as to how a witness should be sworn an oath. As provided
in the Rules, the examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing
shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. The proper way of
taking the oath of a witness is by telling the witness to put her left hand on
top of the bible and to raise her right hand and pose to question to her: Do
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? then let the witness answer. Thereafter, he should have asked the

witness about her personal circumstances for the record of the court.
The defense counsel failed to offer the testimony of the witness as evidence
before she started asking questions. Rule 132 Section 35 provides that as
regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the

witness is called to testify.

Another mistake committed by the defense counsel was pertaining to the
questions she asked the witness. The question asked the witness was Do
you know SPO3 Morales?, which was an objectionable question because
the identity of the person being asked to the witnessed has not been
previously established. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that A
question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

Mariline Lee E-PRACTICUM V

Judge Jean Marie A. Villena

LLB4401

(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing

agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association

which is an adverse party.

As to the witness, it was observed that she was smiling while she was testifying
before the court. Jurisprudence dictates that the Court gives the highest respect
to the RTCs evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique
position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its
vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of
witnesses. With these rule in mind, the conduct of the said witness can greatly
affect the outcome of the case because no matter how truthful the testimony is, if
such behavior is manifested then the court would tend to lean on the opposite
side of the witness testimony.