TRIAL COURT OBSERVATION FOR

PRACTICE COURT

Submitted by : ERICK JAY N. INOK

4th Year – 5 Year Program
 INTRODUCTION

On November 14, 2019, I, Erick Jay N. Inok, appeared before the

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Branch 4 & Regional Trial Court , Branch 4,
Hall of Justice, Ecoland, Davao City as shown in the Certificate of
Appearance marked as “Annex A”, in the morning to observe two (2) Criminal
Cases to give us a glimpse of what is happening in the real legal world or
how does the procedures are applied in the trial courts aside from learning
the Rules of Court itself in our Practice Court class.

MTCC OBSERVATION PROPER

In the First Criminal case, the Presiding Judge Hon. Maria Sophia T.
Palma Gil- Torrejos announced that the court will start hearing the cases, the
court interpreter announced the name of the case and the case number

COURT INTERPRETER : Next case is Crim. Case No. M-DVO-19-01780-CR,

People of the Philippines vs Manuel M. Belonio,Jr.

FOR: RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Continuation Of The Hearing

 The respective Prosecutor, Private Prosecutor and Defense Counsel
made their appearances before the court, Witness for the Prosecution Taxi
Owner Norman Markin was then called to the witness stand for Direct
Examination

[Section 5.Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-

in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue.]

[Section 35.When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness,

the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of

a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed
by the court to be done in writing.]

Witness Norman Markin as the owner of the Taxi sworn an affirmation

to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then he was
asked by the Private Prosecutor series of questions which includes
identifying pictures, receipts, demand letters and its proof of service,
registration of the Taxi and lastly his affidavit which was thereafter marked
as Exhibits upon the cross checking of the Defense counsel who confirmed
the faithful reproduction of the said documents. The witness was also asked
by the court to point the accused if such accused was in court which he
pointed to a man wearing blue polo shirt which he identify as the accused
Bilonio,Jr. Thereafter the Defense counsel was allowed to Cross Examine
the witness.
[Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by
the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue]

During the Cross Examination, the Defense Counsel showed documents

to the witness to confirm their veracity and truthfulness which was affirmed
by the said witness. The Defense Counsel also asked series of questions
establishing certain issues with regards to the accident, which the witness
denied having any knowledge or information because he was not present at
the time of the accident, but his only knowledge from the facts came from his
Taxi driver and the Police report. The Defense counsel also argued on why
was there two (2) different receipts issued in 1 day, the Private prosecutor
objected for the reason that only the one who issued the receipts can answer
that question, which Judge affirmed the objection. The Defense counsel also
argued why did the witness asked for loss of income until August 30 when in
fact, the repair of the Taxi was finished on August 15, the witness answered
that it is because they needed two weeks for test drives to ensure that the
Taxi was in good condition for the safety of the passengers. The Defense
counsel also asked that since it was allegedly the fault of the accused, why
did the taxi owner paid for the repairs instead of the accused Bellonio Jr. ,
the witness answered that he waited and waited for the reply of the accused
but no reply was had and so he decided to repair the taxi by himself and
uttered the words ”Walang forever” , the whole court personnel as well as
the people in the court was laughing which prompted the Defense counsel
to warn the witness that if he uttered non-sense words again, the Defense
counsel might move for the contempt of the witness. The Private Prosecutor
intervened and asked for apology. The Defense counsel thereafter rested its
case.

1. Was the Continuous Trial strictly followed?

Yes, the Continuous trial rule was followed in this case, except in
relation to the court calendar in which the above mentioned case was
not included in the court calendar posted outside the courtroom,
paragraph 2 of Procedure of A.M No. 15-06-10-SC or the Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases provides that “ All
courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars outside
their courtrooms at least one (1) day before the scheduled
hearings, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 250-2015”. The court
stenographer explained that the cases called was only an additional
and thus it was not included in the court calendar.

2. Who has the better stand, the plaintiff or the defendant?

In this case, the Plaintiff has the better stand since his documentary
evidence like the Police Report showed that the accused was in fault ,
there is also a presumption that accused is in bad faith for failing to
communicate properly with the owner of the Taxi after repeated
demand letters which were received by him and there was also
 receipts issued by the auto shop to show that exact amount of actual
damages suffered by the owner of the Taxi.

RTC OBSERVATION PROPER

In the Second Criminal case, the Presiding RTC Judge Hon. Jill Rose
S. Jaugan-Lo announced that the court will start hearing the next case, the
court interpreter announced the name of the case and the case number

COURT INTERPRETER : Next case is Crim. Case No. 72,555-12

People of the Philippines vs Stella Mae Patosa

FOR: QUALIFIED THEFT

Continuation Of The Hearing

The respective Prosecutor, Private Prosecutor and Defense Counsel

made their appearances before the court, Witness for the Prosecution was
then called to the witness stand and sworn an affirmation before the Direct
Examination.

Witness was a utility worker at the same time a depositor of checks to the
bank by the Cooperative, the Private Prosecutor asked the witness to identify
and confirm the Affidavit executed by the accused. Thereafter, the Cross-
examination commenced, the Defense Counsel asked series of questions
including the work of the defendant, knowledge of the transaction in the
office, years working in the cooperative, whether or not the names in the
checks are familiar to him. Majority of the questions of the Defense counsel
was not understood by the Witness because the witness does not
understand English quite well, the Court Interpreter had to translate the
questions in Bisaya, and once answered, the Court Interpreter translates it
back to English for the Court. The Private Prosecutor also objected to the
questions of the Defense Counsel because the questions were already
answered by the witness. In the end, the Judge Jaugan-Lo intervened and
asked if there are still questions from Defense Counsel, the Defense Counsel
answered that he still has a lot of questions to ask to the witness , thereafter
the Judge told the respective Counsel and Prosecutors to move the
continuation of the hearing to another date because there are still a lot of
scheduled cases waiting for that day and then so they agreed to a specific
date next year.

1. Was the Continuous Trial strictly followed?

Yes, the Continuous trial rule was followed in this case by the RTC
Court pursuant to A.M No. 15-06-10-SC

2. Who has the better stand, the plaintiff or the defendant?

In this case, so far, the Plaintiff has the better stand because of the
Witnesses presented which corroborates with the Documentary
evidence presented by the Private Prosecutor. It is difficult to ascertain
the stand of the Defendant for the fact that the Cross-Examination was
interrupted and was scheduled to continue to another date.
 CONCLUSION

Before a witness is made to testify, she or he must sworn an affirmation

which requires her to only speak of the truth and nothing but the truth as
required by the Rules of Court. The witness is faced into a Direct and Cross
Examination, In Direct Examination, the counsel for the petitioner or in cases
where only the civil liability is being prosecuted by the Private Prosecutor,
establishes the reputation and credibility of his witness and to state certain
facts relative to the subject matter and provide details as to give an
implication that there is indeed an issue in which it must be discussed in the
trial proceedings , the evidences are also offered on the same hearing after
the presentation of the witness and the opposing party is allowed to interpose
or object thereto.

In Cross Examination, the Defense Counsel establishes the

authenticity of the evidences presented by the Private Prosecutor and
objects to as the technicalities in offering of such evidences, the Defense
Counsel also intends to show the court that affidavits of the witness are not
the same with the testimonies and also contrary to the evidence presented.