1

CALATA, ATHINA ANGELI R. Legal Writing (JD1)

Court Observation: A Reaction Paper December 15, 2018

“The only source of knowledge is experience.” - Albert

Einstein

I have read from someone I know who is also an aspiring

lawyer that experiencing something gives life to the words we
read and concretizes the theories we learn in the classroom.

Indeed, experience paints the picture of what is set by our

books.

In our subject Legal Writing, we are tasked to experience

what it is like to be in a courtroom while different proceedings
were held and then we shall write a reaction paper about it.

For my observation paper, I choose to visit the Regional

Trial Court Branch 22 first since it is just a few blocks away
from our neighborhood. It is located at Brgy. Centro, Cabagan,
Isabela, just right behind the Cabagan’s Municipal Office and
beside the BFP Cabagan branch which makes it very easy to
locate. The date of my visit was September 25, 2018 from 9
o’clock in the morning until 12 o’clock in the afternoon.

The courthouse itself was abuzz on a Tuesday morning.

The building itself was ordinary, nothing to fancy. The outside
of it looked like any other RTC building and it was hard to tell
what the building was without knowing. The inside was in fact
the same, very ordinary. Still, I was giddy as I was entering the
building which I believed was normal since it would be my first
time to enter in a courtroom and witness how a proceeding is
being held.

The Courtroom had a small group of people milling about

outside, most of them men and women in informal, or rather in
casual, suits. There were not much police officers nor BJMP
officers around except those who accompanied a few prisoners.
Security measures were not that tight contrary to what I am
expecting since there were neither security officers in any of the
courtrooms’ doors and even the assigned security guard of the
building was nowhere in sight which made me feel very unsafe.
Nevertheless, I continued to walk toward an office and looked
 2

for a relative of mine so that I could ask him to reserve a seat for
me inside the courtroom. Note that I already asked him a few
days before to ask for permission whether I could sit on the
hearings they will have that day or not. He informed me
beforehand that the presiding judge had no problem with it.

I entered the room and saw people inside with gloomy and
stern faces. The atmosphere inside the courtroom was engulfed
with serious air. There was almost no available seat for me since
the room was overcrowded, fortunately the Court’s clerk
reserved a seat for me beside the Court Sheriff who told me that
sometimes there is not enough seating for everyone. Inside the
courtroom, there was the seal of the Republic of the Philippines
behind the judge along with the Philippine flag and I could not
remember what flag is in the other side; a couple of fan on the
walls; there were also a number of firearms in one corner which
I am sure will be used as an evidence. There was no microphone
available to the judge which I think was necessary since I
observed that the presiding judge’s voice was very low and I was
wondering whether the people in the audience seats could hear
it or was it only the prosecutors, lawyers, interpreters, and
stenographers who are in the table in front because I myself had
a hard time listening to the people who are in front.

Most of the proceedings I observed that day were

arraignments of criminal cases which majority includes drug
cases, a few were of robbery, homicide and rape. Some are more
interesting than the others, and some have more action than
the rest.

People vs. Gilbert Masigan was the first arraignment that

day. I noticed how, after reading the complaint in English, the
clerk of court relayed the same to the accused by translating it
in Ybanag. I noticed that it really is necessary because it allows
the accused to fully understand why he is called before the
court.

The most interesting part of my observation in This Court

was that I personally know a majority of the people involved in
the series of proceedings conducted that day. There were
feelings of shock since there were some people I never thought
that they could commit the crime they are suspected of but were
found guilty of such crime. Unsurprisingly, most of the drugs
convicts I witnessed were the very same people I met several
times already for the past years.
 3

In People v. Salazar, the accused was arraigned for

multiple rape upon different individuals. I wasn’t able to really
concentrate on the proceeding because I was too preoccupied
eyeing the accused while asking in my mind how could he do
such a thing. I felt rather remorseful to those victims who are
also Cabagueños.

There were a lot of arraignments where the Counsel of the

accused was not present. Just like in People vs. Cervantes,
Judge Torio inquired about the presence of the Counsel of the
accused but a certain Atty. Garcia was not present. I observed
that there were a lot of cases he is supposed to represent that
day, but he asked Atty. Maricion Capili to represent some in his
behalf. There were also cases where the accused was not
present at that time, whereafter Judge Torio called for a hearing
of arraignment of the absent accused to set for an another date;
cases were the accused is asked by the Counsel if the former is
ready for arraignment or not yet.

In Pepito vs. Enrico, et. al, a case of land disputes, I

witness another someone I know but this time she is in the
witness box. The focus of the case was the determination of who
really owned the property in question and the Municipal Doctor,
the witness, who is the nephew of certain Miguel Binag, owner
of the house situated on the lot in question. The Counsel then
began pressing questions whether Dra. Dela Peña lived in the
said house and how many times did the latter visited the same -
I believe this is to assure the credibility of the witness about the
certainty of her knowledge of the ownership of certain Enrico to
the lot in question. However, Dra. Dela Peña answered in the
negative, that she could no longer recall because it was during
the years 1976 to 1985 that she was in Manila and it was during
those periods where the a transfer of ownership was conducted
in the house of Miguel Binag.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel asked her if she has an idea of who

were those people who brought some documents to the latter’s
grandfather which was also happened in the same house. But
the conversation just went:

Witness Dr. Dela Peña: “I cannot remember. I was young

then.”

Plaintiff’s Counsel: “In other words, you did not have an

actual knowledge.”
 4

The questioning was followed by passing of documentary

evidences between the lawyers of the opposing sides. Among the
evidences, a few were just admitted. After which they
re-scheduled the presentation of rebuttal evidences.

In People v. Canceran, supposedly this is a presentation of

evidence as well but the Counsel of the accused told the court
the Defense was resting its case because the accused jumped
bail. Judge Torio then set the date for the promulgation of
judgment. I learned that by jumping bail, the accused waived is
right to present evidence in his defense.

The next proceeding I observed was an illegal recruitment

case, People v. Visquera. The Counsel of the accused told the
judge first that they were ready for arraignment. Then Judge
said, “same appearance for the People,” which I honestly did not
understand what is it for. The complaint said that Ms. Sid
Visquera does not have any license from DOLE to which would
permit her to recruit individuals to travel and work abroad. Plus
the complaint said that she did not do what was promised and
there was a breach of contract. After which the motion of the
accused was “guilty.”

There is this very interesting case - I was not able to take

note of the title - which only happened a week before the recent
election. It is one of those moments that I enjoyed my courtroom
observation especially when I have already heard the rumor
beforehand about the latest killings in the municipality of Sto.
Tomas, Isabela due to rivalries of political parties and I finally
got to witness how they demonstrated it in the courtroom. There
is also this case which happened within our municipality,
Cabagan, where there was already a long list of evidences and
witnesses of the prosecution including autopsy reports and
hospital documents just to prove that the accused really killed
the victim, but to my surprise the defense lawyer just denied all
of it! I wanted to watch all of its succeeding hearings because I
want to see how the defense will counter all the substantial
documents presented and will present, unfortunately I was
unable to do so since I am currently employed and I am only
allowed to a couple of absences in a month.

On November 26, 2018, I went to the RTC Branch 10,

Province of Cagayan. I honestly have no idea that the building is
a courthouse if not for the RTC Branch 10 Signage. It was just a
typical office or the same with public school class rooms. So
much so that I did not expect that the courtroom is very narrow
 5

which I think could only accommodate about 20 people. Since

there was not much enough seats, my classmate and I got to
seat beside an inmate. I wondered if that was allowed? I felt
unsafe and very uncomfortable, though.

We actually can not relate into most of the things they

were doing in the front since the voices were low and due to the
overcrowding of the room, we were not able to concentrate in
our observation. A few minutes later we decide to go to another
branch. So when we arrived in the Hall of Justice, almost all
RTC Branches were empty and we thought it was already too
late until we happened to pass by the Branch 4 courtroom. It is
not like the two courts I have been into that were narrow and
overcrowded. This one is large and fully air-conditioned.

After asking for permission, they allowed us to sit in the

second row so we were able to get a full view of those people
involved and we were also able to properly hear them. A pret-rial
were already on-going at that time where the defendant was
asked by the Clerk if he understood his rights. The defendant
said “opo” and his mother immediately told him to say “yes.” in
my opinion, from what I observed, both parents were very much
involved with their son’s life, however, he may have gotten
caught up with the wrong group of friends. The case is about a
malicious destruction of property. Both attorneys really did not
do much during the pre-trial. It appeared they were just going
through the motions. The judge asked if anyone had any
questions and then dismissed them.

In the criminal case People v. Roger Dela Cruz, a case

which really arose my emotions, the accused is being tried for
the raping the daughter of his mistress two times, and killing of
the same. It was a very interesting trial, the right case to end my
court observation activity. There were lots of anger and laughter
during the proceeding especially when the judge asked the
accused how long had he been married to his legal wife and
when was their marriage but the accused could not remember
any of it which resulted to laughter among the audiences and
even the prosecutor and lawyers present. It also resulted tothe
rising of the voice of Judge Lyliha Aquino toward the accused
questioning the accused that the court would not believe him if
he could not remember even his marriage date. After a few
question from Prosecutor Geron towards the accused, they set
the date of the next trial.
 6

Personally, I would like to work in this kind of

environment, especially if you can help turn some of those
people around and point their lives in the right direction. And I
believe that is what, among others, the judges are trying to do.
And I cannot wait for that time where I could participate in such
environment. Not as an accused, of course.