SCRIPT

ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
JOSEPH ESTRELLAV. GRACE ESTRELLA

CHARACTERS:
Joseph Estrella-Petitioner/Husband
Paulo Camanian - Petitioner’s Counsel
Grace Ragsag as Grace Estrella - Respondent/Wife
Chrystal Abelgas - Witness for Petitioner/Psychologist
Shiela Boquiron as Shiela Estrella - Witness for Petitioner/Daughter
Manny Collado - Witness for Petitioner/Brother-in-Law
Patrick Patricio - Public Prosecutor
Vincent Verzosa – Judge
Anjelica Estacion – Clerk of Court
Czarinna Lim – Stenographer
Airah Enconado - Interpreter
____________________________________________________________________________________
_

Narrator:Good eveningeveryone! I am_____________, the narrator of this group. We’re very excited to
perform in front of you today.Before we start, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who
made this mock trial possible, especially our dear professor, Ret. Justice Carmelita Manahan, who
equipped us with all that we needed to know in order to fulfill our duties as lawyers in the future. Lastly,
we’d like to thank each and everyone of us for tirelesslyworking as a team in order to make a presentation
worthy of the title attorney. I will now introduce our cast members: (state names and characters)
….

Narrator:Today, we are presenting our case: CIVIL CASE NO. 1111-11 JOSEPH ESTRELLA V. GRACE
ESTRELLA. I will now give you a brief summary of our case. Petitioner married respondent on April 2,
1989. During the early stages of their relationship, respondent was already engaged in small scale
gambling. Petitioner did not give it much thought since respondent reasoned that it was her only source of
entertainment outside of work. Thus, their happy married life began up until the birth of their second child,
when respondent’s behavior took a turn for the worse. Respondent’s gambling addiction took over her
and made her neglect her marital obligations, including taking care of their children. The straw that broke
the camel’s back however, was respondent’s accumulation of debt to finance her gambling without the
knowledge of petitioner.Petitioner was thus constrained to file this case. In our presentation you will
witness how both parties defend their case up until the verdict. Will their marriage be annulled? We shall
begin our mock trial with the presentation of petitioner’s evidence.

MOCK TRIAL SCRIPT

PETITIONER’S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
CIVIL CASE NO. 1111-11
JOSEPH ESTRELLA V. GRACE ESTRELLA

Court Interpreter: This honorable court of the Regional Trial Court Branch 202, Quezon City with the
Honorable Judge Vincent Versoza is now in session. All rise. Silence is hereby ordered by the presiding
judge.
*prayer: Let’s pray. Almighty God, we stand in Your Holy Presence as our Supreme Judge. We humbly
beseech You to bless and inspire us so that what we think, say and do will be in accordance with Your
will. Enlighten our minds, strengthen our spirit and fill our hearts with fraternal love, wisdom and
understanding, so that we can become effective channels of truth, justice and peace. In our proceedings
today, guide us in the path of righteousness for the fulfillment of Your greater glory. Amen.
Judge: Court is now in session.

Court Interpreter: Civil Case No. 1111-11 JOSEPH ESTRELLA V. GRACE ESTRELLA for annulment of
marriage is called for hearing. The following counsels appeared:

Judge: Appearances

Public Prosecutor: For the State, Patrick Patricio, your honor, respectfully appearing.

Petitioner’s Counsel 1: Respectfully appearing as counsel for the petitioner, Joshua Maquiling, your
honor.

Judge: Ready for trial?

Petitioner’s Counsel 1: Yes your honor, we have 2 witnesses.

Judge: Call your witness.

(Petitioner’s Counsel will now call Petitioner Joseph Estrella to the witness stand.)

Interpreter: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?

Petitioner: Yes Ma’am.

Interpreter: Please state your name.

Petitioner: I am Joseph Estrella.

Interpreter: State your age.

Petitioner: ____ years old.

Interpreter: State your civil status.

Petitioner: Married.

Interpreter: State your address.

Petitioner: _________________________________

Interpreter: The witness is ready your honor.

Judge: Proceed.

Petitioner’s Counsel 1: Your honor, we offer the testimony of the witness to prove that the witness is
legally married to Grace Estrella, that Mrs. Estrella failed to perform her marital obligation, to identify
documents and to prove other relevant matters.

Judge: What do you say defense counsel? Do you have any objections to the Judicial Affidavit?

Defense Counel: Subject to cross examination your honor.

 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER

Counsel for Petitioner: Proceed your honor.

Judge: Proceed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Witness, do you recall having executed a judicial affidavit in relation to this
case?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: I am showing to you a judicial affidavit consisting of four pages Mr. Witness, are
you referring to this judicial affidavit?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: On the left side Mr. Witness, there is a signature, whose signature is this?

Petitioner: That is my signature, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: On the second page, left side Mr. Witness, there is also a signature, whose
signature is this?

Petitioner: That is my signature, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: And on the third page on the left side, there is also a signature, whose signature
is this, Mr. Witness?

Petitioner: My signature, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: And in the fourth page on the top of the name there is also a signature. Whose
signature is this?

Petitioner: My signature, sir.

Counsel for Petitioner: Do you attest that the contents of your judicial affidavit are true and correct
based on your personal knowledge and perception?

Petitioner: Yes, Atty.

Counsel for Petitioner: Before whom did you subscribe your judicial affidavit, Mr. Witness?

Petitioner: Atty. Paulo Camanian

Counsel for Petitioner: That would be all for the witness, your honor.

Counsel for Petitioner: If your honor, please, the judicial affidavit of the witness served as his direct
testimony.

Judge: Alright, ready for cross?

Public Prosecutor: With the permission of this Honorable Court.

Judge: Proceed.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ON WITNESS

Prosecutor: You said Mr. Witness, in number _______ of your judicial affidavit that your relationship with
your wife is okay although, you said, you would see her playing cards, is that correct?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And this is before you got married?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: How long was your relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend?

Petitioner: Five months, sir.

Prosecutor: And it was during these 5 months that you saw her playing cards, is that correct?

Petitioner: No sir.

Prosecutor: Because you said in your affidavit that before you got married to respondent your
relationship with her was okay but you could already see her playing cards during that time?

Petitioner: During the wake sir, she’s asking permission to play cards.

Prosecutor: During that time, it was tolerable, correct?

Petitioner: At that time it was tolerable but when I was assigned in Lanao she became addicted to
playing cards, sir.

Prosecutor: When were you assigned in Lanao?

Petitioner: 1997 sir.

Judge: How old were you when you got married?

Petitioner: 25.

Judge: And you are now 55.

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Judge: It took you how many years? You got married at 25?

Petitioner: Yes, your honor.

Judge: So 30 years to file this case? Proceed.

Prosecutor: How long have you been married at that time Mr. Witness, before you were assigned in
Lanao?

Petitioner: 1989 up to 1997 sir.

Prosecutor: So, during that time that you were married in 1989 to 1997 when you were assigned in
Lanao did you personally witness the gambling activities of your wife?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: She was already playing or engaged in gambling?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And then when you were assigned in Lanao del Norte in 1997 you learned that she was
addicted to gambling, is that correct?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And how did you know about this?

Petitioner: It was my kids who told me that my wife was already addicted to gambling.

Prosecutor: Where were your wife and children residing at the time you were assigned to Lanao?

Petitioner: ______________________________________

Prosecutor: Do you know how many times a week your wife engaged in gambling?

Petitioner: During weekends, sir.

Prosecutor: What is she doing during weekdays?

Petitioner: Working as a teacher, sir.

Prosecutor: So whose money did she use in gambling during weekends?

Petitioner: Her own money.

Prosecutor: And who provided for the expenses of your children during that time?

Petitioner: I was the one supporting them financially.

Judge: What year did you separate from your wife?

Petitioner: 2006, your honor.

Judge: So you have been living from 1989 to 2006 as husband and wife?

Petitioner: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Proceed.
Prosecutor: And how about the salary of the wife as teacher did she use it for gambling?

Petitioner: I asked for her pay slip from their finance department sir and there were three kinds of loans
she applied for. I don’t know where the money went.

Prosecutor: Now, in 1997 while you were still assigned to Lanao, you learned of this problem of your
wife. Why did you not go home to _________ to fix the problem?

Petitioner: I did go home sir, once or twice a month.

Prosecutor: Did you not talk to your wife about her gambling problem?

Petitioner: Yes, sir, but we end up arguing so the conflict was not resolved.

Judge: What kind of gambling?

Petitioner: Card.

Judge: Only card?

Petitioner: Card and mahjong.

Prosecutor: Did you not try to seek professional help Mr. Witness, together with your wife to help with
her gambling addiction?

Petitioner: I approached her parents sir, to help with her gambling problem.

Prosecutor: What happened?

Petitioner: But they ignored me.

Prosecutor: Now, you also said that your wife failed to come home for days at a time Mr. Witness?

Petitioner: Sometimes sir, when their games are at their peak, she fails to come home.

Prosecutor: And then, you learned that your wife engaged in an extra marital affair with another man, is
that correct?

Petitioner: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: What year did you find out about this?

Petitioner: Last 2006 sir, after we separated. I interviewed the kids and found out she was having an
extra marital affair.

Prosecutor: You only asked the kids? Why did you not ask your wife?

Judge: They were already separated by 2006.

Prosecutor: Yes, your honor, but he did not confront her even though they were still married at that time.
Petitioner: No sir.

Prosecutor: This one hundred twenty thousand pesos (P120,000.00) used by your wife to support her
vices was money from the barangay, is that correct?

Petitioner: Yes sir, it was money lent by the barangay.

Prosecutor: Who informed you about the money used by your wife?

Petitioner: Members of the barangay came to our house, that is why I knew she had financial problems.

Prosecutor: No more questions your honor.

Judge: Why file an annulment now, when in fact you were separated for nine years already? Are you
planning to get married?

Petitioner: I filed this case your honor to protect my wife’s reputation as a teacher. She is already living
with someone else in our conjugal dwelling.

Judge: You and your wife agreed that you would file a case for annulment of marriage?

Petitioner: No, your honor.

Judge: According to you, you filed this case in order to protect your wife. Why are you protecting her
when you already separated in 2006?

Petitioner: Just to have a proper separation, your honor.

Judge: Why protect when you have been separated for 9 years already?

Petitioner: [no answer]

Judge: When was the last time you talked to your wife?

Petitioner: 2005.

Judge: After 2005, you have not spoken to your wife?

Petitioner: No, your honor.

Judge: Do you have no plans to get married?

Petitioner: No your honor.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, do you still have questions?

Prosecutor: No more your honor.

Judge: You may go down now you are excused.

ORDER.
Judge: You call your 2nd witness, Panero.

Atty: May we call our 2nd witness to the witness stand, Mr. Manny Collado.

Judge: Swear the witness.

Record: The Interpreter called the witness to the witness stand, and after having sworn to an oath to tell
the truth and nothing but the truth, declares that he is Manny Collado (personal circumstances).

Interpreter: Your witness is ready

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF BROTHER-IN LAW

Atty: Your honor we offer the testimony of this witness in order to prove that sometime in the year 2002,
he was able to live with the petitioner and respondent in Joseph’s Address Quezon City, that the witness
observe the behavior, the gambling habits of the respondent, this witness will also corroborate to the
testimony of the petitioner that respondent indeed fail to perform her marital obligation. Your Honor, this
witness will identify his judicial affidavit which constitute as his direct testimony, may I proceed, Your
Honor?

Judge: Defense counsel, what do you say?

Atty: Subject to cross your honor?

Judge: Proceed

Atty: Can you recall having executed a judicial affidavit in relation to this case?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Atty: I am showing to you this judicial affidavit consisting of (4) four pages, can you identify this Judicial
Affidavit?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir, that is the judicial affidavit.

Atty: On the 2nd page on top of the name Manny Collado, there is a signature, whose signature is this?

Brother-in-Law: That is my signature, sir.

Atty: Could you still attest and confirm that the contents of this judicial affidavit are true and correct based
on your personal knowledge and perception?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir, it’s true.

Atty: That would be all for the witness, Your Honor, we adopt the judicial affidavit as the direct testimony
of the witness.

Judge: Alright, ready for cross?

Public Prosecutor: With the permission of this Honorable Court.

Judge: Proceed.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ON WITNESS

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, you are the brother-in-law of the petitioner

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: You are the brother of his wife Grace Estrella?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And you said that petitioner would like to annul his marriage to his wife because his wife was
addicted to gambling, is that correct?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And you also said here that just recently you discovered that his wife is already living with
another man, is that correct?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, just recently, sir.

Prosecutor: When you said recently, when was that?

Brother-in-Law: 2010, sir.

Prosecutor: 2010?

Brother-in-Law: Just recently.

Prosecutor: You said that you know that his wife was addicted to gambling because you and your family
temporarily lived in their house in Address in Quezon City, is that correct?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: But it was only for 1 year?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And in 1 year, how many times you actually saw his wife engage in gambling?

Brother-in-Law: Almost every weekend, Sir, when we were there.

Prosecutor: Every weekend, what kind of gambling game that she plays?

Brother-in-Law: Cards, majong, tong-its.

Prosecutor: Was there a bet?

Brother-in-Law: She said it was only for one peso, Sir, but she often came late, so I don’t believe it its
peso-peso only.

Prosecutor: Where did they engage in gambling activities?

Brother-in-Law: in front of their house across the street.

Prosecutor: And you said a while ago Mr. Witness, that the wife of the petitioner is already living with
another man since 2010, how did you know about this?

Brother-in-Law: Somebody informed us, sir.

Prosecutor: You only hear about it?

Brother-in-Law: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: No more question Your Honor.

Judge: Redirect examination.

Atty: None, Your Honor.

Judge: The witness is excused.

Judge: Call your 3rd witness, Atty.

Atty: We would like to call to the witness stand, Your Honor please, Ms. Crystal Abelgas.

Interpreter: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God?

Pyschologist: Yes, sir.

Record: The interpreter called her to the witness stand and after having been sworn to an oath to tell the
truth and nothing but the truth, she declares that she is Ms. Crystal Ablegas (personal circumstances).
The witness is ready.

Judge: Proceed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PSYCHOLOGIST

Atty: If your honor please, the testimony of this witness, is offered to prove that as an expert in the field of
Psychology. She prepared a Clinical Psychological Evaluation of Grace Estrella and Joseph Estrella. That
based on her findings she discovered that respondent Grace Estrella is suffering from psychological
incapacity, known as Antisocial Personality Disorder with overlapping features Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, aggravated by some features of Pathological Gambling Disorder. The Witness will also testify
that the respondent cannot perform marital obligations.This Witness will also testify that the psychological
disorder is incurable and existed prior to the marriage. This Witness will identify her Clinical Psychological
Evaluation and to prove other relevant matters.

Judge: Defense counsel, what do you say?

Atty: Subject to cross your honor.

Judge: Proceed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY ON WITNESS

Atty: Madam Witness, could you recall having executed a judicial affidavit in relation to this case?

Psychologist: Yes, sir.

Atty: Showing to you a judicial affidavit consisting of 9 pages are you referring to this document?

Psychologist: This is the one, Sir.

Atty: In the last page, Madam Witness, where is your signature?

(Interpreter: The witness is pointing her signature above the typewritten name Crystal Abelgas)

Psychologist: This is my signature, sir.

Record: The Witness is pointing at the bottom part of the document.

Atty: Could you still attest and confirm that the contents of your judicial affidavit are true and correct
based on your knowledge and perception?
Psychologist: Yes, sir.

Atty: Your honor we have already stipulated during pre trial on the expertise of the psychologist.

Psychologist: Admitted, your honor.

Atty: Madam Witness, you said that you prepared a Clinical Psychological Evaluation in realation to this
case I am showing to you a document Clinical Psychological Evaluation of Grace Estrella and Joseph
Estrella are you referring to this document, Madam Witness?

Psychologist: Yes, sir.

Atty: Your Honor please, that this document was previously be marked as our Exhibit “E”, may I request
your honor that the remarks and recommendation be bracketed and sub marked as Exh. E-1

Judge: The interpreter.

Atty: And the name and signature of Ms. Crystal Abelgas be marked as our Exhibit “E-2”, Your Honor.

Judge: Mark it.

Atty: That would be all for witness, Your Honor.

Judge: Finished already adopting?

Atty: Yes, Your Honor, we would like to adopt, Your Honor please, the judicial affidavit of this witness as
her direct testimony.

Judge: Cross.

Prosecutor: With the kind permission of this Honorable Court.

Judge: Proceed.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ON WITNESS

Prosecutor: Madam Witness, you said that you have conducted a test upon the petitioner, is that
correct?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: What was your overall assessment with the petitioner, Ms. Witness?

Psychologist: After the conduct of the test and interpretation I was able to find out that the petitioner is
having or possessing psychologically healthy personality and he is capacitated to perform his marital
obligation.

Prosecutor: Psychologically healthy and capacitated to perform his marital obligations?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am

Prosecutor: And how did you conduct this test, Madam Witness, to come up with this assessment?

Psychologist: There was a battery of test that I have conducted starting from his IQ to his personality
until some of projective test and this battery of test eventually provided me the profile of the petitioner.

Prosecutor: You conduct direct interviews on the petitioner?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: And then you were also able to conduct an interview or a direct assessment on the
respondent?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: and what tools did you use, Madam Witness, what kind of test did you conduct for the
respondent.

Psychologist: I was only doing that interview schedule or the interview tool because aside from her
being far from the place because she is living in Quezon City I called her and did some interview on
specific structures meaning to say, I try to verify statements that were presented to me by the petitioner
an some corroborates and so from here she admitted most of the allegations that were given by the
petitioner were admitted by the respondent herself.

Prosecutor: So, you are able to talk to the respondent only by phone, is that correct?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: And how long did you talk to her, Madam Witness?

Psychologist: About two hours because it is intermittent. We have to make use of the electronic gadgets
and so from time to time it’s going to be off.

Prosecutor: Two hours, all in all?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: So, you only called her once?

Psychologist: Yes, I did actually, I attempted before that specific time that I was able to contact her. I
already tried talking to her or contacting her but she was not available or if not, the signal was poor that is
why when eventually we were able to talk, she even apologized for not taking my calls.

Prosecutor: Okay, so you have talked to the respondent only over the phone and only for two hours?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Judge: The Respondent?

Psychologist: The respondent, your honor.

Prosecutor: And after that you were able to come up with an assessment on her behavior, is that
correct?

Psychologist: Along with the information I got from corroborators.

Prosecutor: And your assessments on the respondent is that she is demonstrating behavior
manifestation of Antisocial personality disorder?

Psychologist: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: As well as Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Psychologist: With overlapping features only, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: With overlapping features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder aggravated by some features
of Pathological Gambling Disorder, is it enough Dr. or your method of coming up with this assessment
because this sounds serious manifestations, is that correct?
Psychologist: Yes, maam.

Prosecutor: Is that two-hour interview by calling her by phone enough to come up with these serious
manifestations of behavior or behavioral manifestations?

Psychologist: For verification it is enough because even before that there were already preliminary
assessments that were conducted. I even tried to talk with the two sons, the daughter, the other
corroborators, and also the brother-in-law who was living with them in the same community or vicinity and
they were the ones who presented me some of the situations wherein the respondent herself was not
able to comply with her marital obligations of providing support to the petitioner simply because she was
involved in gambling and there were not only malversation of funds but borrowing of money from their
own community organization.

Prosecutor: Did she comfirm, Madam Witness that she is engage in gambling, over the phone?

Psychologist: Yes, she did.

Prosecutor: And, you said that these behavioral manifestations are incurable?

Psychologist: Yes, these are incurable.

Prosecutor: But have you heard about behavioral modification, Dr.?

Psychologist: Yes, maam. I’ve heard it is actually one way of helping an individual improve a certain
behavior or not really modify because the term modification will take time for an individual to change. For
example if the disorder had already been long inside the individual, it will take even years. But in a
particular case when we try to categorize under the Axis II these are not symptomatic disorder these are
already a life time or near life time disorder with no period or improvement.

Prosecutor: So, this cannot be cured by this behavioral modification?

Psychologist: No, maam.

Prosecutor: This manifestation how does it affect her ability to perform her marital obligations.

Psychologist: Antisocial personality disorder actually will cause the individual not to be able to fulfil the
marital obligation in the sense that she will not honor her obligation with the other individual or the
petitioner for example in this case and she will bring the petitioner into shame considering that she did
some borrowing and also she eventually had a live-in partner that she brought while they are still married
with her in their own house that was built for them by the petitioner himself.

Prosecutor: We have no other question, Your Honor.

Atty: no re-direct, Your Honor.

Judge: You are excused. You may go down now.