1111111111111111THINK PIECE

My paper focuses on my court room observation from different courts and

different cases here in Naga City. One of the cases that we observed was an
arraignment of the accused in the case of People of the Philippines v. San Jose
which was tried in the Regional Trial court, Branch 28 in Naga City, where the
accused was charged of the case of violation of Republic Act 9262 wherein he
was accused of Violence against women and their children, the information
against him was read to him by the clerk of court during his arraignment and he
pleaded not guilty to the violation of Republic Act 9262. The courtroom where
we observed the case was crowded since it was just small and since that it was
not the only case that was being tried there during at that time, most of the cases
that was being tried there was a violation of Republic Act 9165 otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 2002, which is a very common case
nowadays in our country since our president main focus during his term of
office is the war against drugs he has allowed most of the courts in our country
to be a drug court wherein they can hear a case involving the violation of
Republic Act 9262. Another case that we have observed during our court
observation is the case of People v. Chavez where we observed a statutory rape
case committed by the father of the victim. In this case, we could observe the
prosecutor when she conducted her Direct Examination of the child witness and
her direct examination of the expert witness. We were very lucky in his case
since that it was a rape case the judge ordered the other audience to leave the
court room since the witness in the said case was a child witness, the only ones
who could be inside the court room when it came time for the prosecutor to
examine the witness was the accused Chavez, the child witness who is the
victim, the counsels for both parties, the court employees and us the observers
on the said case. We were impresses with the judge in the said case since she
observed the rules of examination of a child witness wherein the witness can sit
beside the prosecutor for her to feel comfortable when the prosecutor asks her
the questions during her direct examination. The prosecutor in said case was
very careful on the questions that she was asking the witness since that it was a
child witness, the prosecutor had to make sure that the child witness would be
comfortable in answering the questions that she is asking her for her to be able
to clearly narrate the events that took place when her father forced her to have
carnal knowledge with him. The child told her side of the story on what her
father did to her, she answered the questions that was asked to her by the
prosecutor. When it came time for the counsel of the accused, he did not bother
to cross-examine the accused, for us it was the right move for the counsel to do
since the witness confidently told her side of the story with utmost certainty. The
child witness in the said case showed great courage when she was being
examined by the prosecutor that is how she could narrate the events that
happened during the time that her father forced here to have carnal knowledge
with him, although she was only just a child she was able to clearly narrate the
said events even though she was traumatized by said events since it was her own
flesh and blood that did it to her. The child witness also showed no signs of pity
when the prosecutor asked her if she was sure that she is going to charge her
own father of the case of statutory rape knowing that he was going to go to jail
for a very long time, the said witness answered with utmost confidence that she
was very sure that she was charging her own father of the case of rape so that he
would suffer for the heinous crime that he did to her. The next witness that was
examined during the trial of the case was the medico-legal who is considered as
an expert witness, she was the one who examined the child witness, and she
clearly established that the said child witness was indeed forced by the accused
to have carnal knowledge with him. Another case that we have observed in the
course of our court observation is the case of Fermelita R. Quinito v. Emery
Raymond Quinito where we observed the direct examination of an expert
witness who is a psychiatrist for a case of legal separation filed by the wife
against her husband for the reason of mental incapacity of the husband. In the
said case, the counsel for the plaintiff asked the psychiatrist questions that would
establish that the husband of the witness really lack mental capacity which is
one of the grounds for them to rule on the case of legal separation against the
husband. Another case that we have observed is the case of People of the
Philippines v. Archie Rull wherein he was cross-examined by the counsel of the
plaintiff for a case of theft that was filed against him. He was accused for the
crime of theft, where he took pigeon rings which was worth 35 pesos all in all.
These are only some of the cases which we have observed during our court
observation in different courts in Naga City.

We have also observed during the course of our court observation in different
courts that it is of the utmost importance that you inform the Clerk of Court in
the court where you would be observing that you intend to observe in the court
room where he/she is working in order to inform them of your objective on why
you need the said court observations and in order for them to be informed or to
let them see that you really where there to observe and not just get their
signature without completing or observing the proceedings of the said case in
that said court room. We have also observed some of the problems in courts that
we encounter during the trial of a case, one of these problems is the slow
implementation of justice here in our country, the reason for this is the clogged
court dockets, which mean that there are too many cases being heard by very
few courts and judges. This is the reason why fewer and fewer cases get to be
decided by the courts. As evidence to this we have observed that in one court
room there are different cases being heard at a single hearing date because we
lack the courtroom and judges here in our country. For this problem to be
remedied, we need to appoint new judges or add new court rooms so that there
would be many courts that can hear a case even though there are many case if
we have a vast number of judges or court room those cases would not be
pending in a single court room and just be waiting for its turn to be heard in
court. The legal principle “Justice delayed is Justice denied” is no longer
applicable in our case since we lack the number of courts and judges it would
not be prevented that a case would be docketed and it would take a long time
before it can be heard again because of such lack of courts and judges or if not
the lack of courts or judges, the other reason for such delay would be the no
show of one of the parties that is involved in the case, in this case the party who
did not attend the trial of the case on the scheduled date would be given a
subpoena in order for them to be informed of the rescheduling of the trial of the
said case.