LEGAL COUNSELING

Submitted by:
La Verne Ryan Carlo A. Abad

Submitted to:
Atty. Tang
Court Observation

Court: Regional Trial Court

Branch 150, City of Makati
Hon. Judge Elmo M. Alameda
Date: November 10, 2015

This report is created to state general and specific observation on the

lawyers appeared before the Court stated above.

Case 1: People of the Philippines v. Ma. Cristina San Jose

For: Estafa under Art. 315 par. 315 2(D)
Re: Initial Pre-Trial
Case: The pre-trial only last for half an hour. They only had a
stipulation of the facts and marking of evidences.
Observation: Judge
1. He seems to be in control of the situation in the court
room.
2. He has a very strict demeanor in court.
3. Arrived early
4. Has asked if the Defendant's lawyer is considering a
Plea Bargain.

Prosecutor
1. He is ready with the pre-trial.
2. Prepared all the exhibits to be marked.
3. Quite experienced with the processes.
 Respondent's Lawyer
1. He came in late.
2. Objected on the jurisdiction of the court over his
client.

Case 2: People of the Philippines v. Benzon Arellano

For: Carnapping
Re: Initial Pre-Trial
Case: The Defendant was present in court. He was brought by the
BJMP authorities of Cavite where he was detained.

Observation: Judge
1. He asked if the Defendant's lawyer is considering a
Plea Bargain.
2. Assisted the Defendant's through the process.

Prosecutor
1. Not ready with the witness.
2. Stutters when trying to explain to the Judge.
3. Seems to have low self-confidence.
4. Ready with the exhibits.

Defendant's lawyer
1. Has good command of English and has excellent
communication skills.
2. Guided by the Judge on the stipulation of the facts.
3. Seems to be a new lawyer.
Case 3: People of the Philippines v. Froilan Delos Santos
For: Violation of RA 10591 SEC. 28(A) in rel. to
SEC 28 (E-1)
Re: Continuation of presentation of prosecution's evidence
Case: The case was reset due to time constraint and to the
request of the prosecution to have it re-scheduled because the
prosecution have not yet conferred with their witness before
testifying.

Observation: Judge
1. Agreed with the resetting and gave the prosecution
time to confer with their witness.

Prosecutor
1. Ready with his evidences.

Defendant's Lawyer
1. No appearance.

Case 4: People of the Philippines v. Irene Araza

For: Violation of RA 8484 SEC. 9(D)
Re: Continuation of direct examination of Prosecution with
witness
Case: The case took about 2 1/2 hours to finish. The prosecution
conducted a continuation of the direct examination. Witness
was ready with her evidences. No interpreter was needed.
Observation: Judge
1. He was asking the defendant's lawyer of any
objections, which hinted the lawyer to object to
some questions.
2. He assisted the defendant's lawyer at times during the
course of trial.
3. He still maintained a strict demeanor and at times
would ask the witness some questions.

Public Prosecutor
1. The prosecutor seems to just have taken over the
case. (private prosecutor withdrew appearance)
2. He is very confident and forceful.
3. Pinpoints issues.
4. Dissects information from witness.
5. Notices discrepancies in the evidences presented.
6. Conducts direct examination while seated.
7. Extracts information from the witness easily due to
good questioning.
8. Overcomes objections.

Defendant's Lawyer
1. Timely objects.
2. Has few good objections.
3. Objections are usually denied by the Judge.