ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL

PRACTICE COURT

1. Accused – Nathaniel Jay Morello

2. Interpreter – Avegail Icoy
3. Counsel for the Accused – Lorie/ Aimee
4. Public Prosecutor – Lorie/ Aimee
5. Clerk of Court -Jhenny Mae Agas

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12345

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MARIA PALANGGANA

Clerk of Court: All rise! Honorable Judge Richard Suyu is in court. 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.
(All rise)
Judge: Court is now in session. Call the cases.
(Sit down)
ARRAIGNMENT
Clerk of Court: For arraignment: Criminal Case No. 12345 People of the Philippines vs Maria Palanggana
CC: Appearance for prosecution and the defense.
Prosecutor Udarbe: For the people, Your Honor.
Atty. Querubin: For the accused, your Honor.
Judge: Ready for arraignment?
Prosecutor Udarbe: Yes, Your Honor. We are ready.
Judge: Is the accused around?
Court Interpreter: Yes, Your Honor. Please approach the bench.
Judge: Arraign the accused.
Court Interpreter: Criminal Case No. 12345. People of the Philippines vs Maria Palanggana
Accused Maria Palanggana commits a crime of Estafa
(INFORMATION)
Judge: Do you understand the crime charged against you?
Accused: Yes, Your Honor.
Court Interpreter: What is your plea?
Accused: Not guilty, your Honor.
Court Interpreter: The accused pleaded not guilty Your Honor.
Judge: Let it be on the record that the accused pleaded not guilty for the crime of Estafa. The Information
was read to him in English, a language known and understood by the accused. Also, Atty. Udarbe the
defense counsel of the accused assisted him in this arraignment.
Atty. Querubin: Your Honor, we would like to set the case for pre-trial on January 3, 2023.
INFORMATION (c/o Ate Cris)
That sometime in 2018, in the Municipality of Tuao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused defrauded Josefina Marcos as follows: the accused, under false
pretenses which she made to the said Josefina Marcos to the effect that accused was authorized by certain
third parties to borrow money from Josefina Marcos for and on their behalf, which representations the
accused knew to be false and were only made to induce the said Josefina Marcos to give her money to the
said accused, as in fact the said Josefina Marcos gave and delivered to the accused the aggregate amount
of PHP _______, and once in possession of the said sum of money the accused misappropriated and
converted the same to her personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Josefina Marcos in the
amount of PHP ________.
 PRE-TRIAL

Judge: Are you ready for the pre-trial? …

Aimee: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Ok. Proceed.

COC: Criminal Case No. 23101, People of the Philippines v. JAYMARK EBOJO Y TABAO for the crime of violation of RA
9165 (sales of dangerous drugs).

Judge: For the prosecution.

Prosecution: (Reads their proposals in their pre-trial brief) “Do the defense admit that …..?”

Aimee: Denied.

Prosecution: (Reads their proposals in their pre-trial brief) “Do the defense admit that …..?”

Aimee: Denied.

Prosecution: (Reads their proposals in their pre-trial brief) “Do the defense admit that the accused is Jaymark
Ebojo?”

Aimee: We admit, your honor that the accused, Jaymark Ebojo y Tabao, is the same person who had been arraigned
and pleaded NOT Guilty in this case. (Ito lang ang i-aadmit natin)

Other proposals from the prosecution = DENIED.

NOTE: Our turn to recite our proposals.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

a. In the Affidavit of the Poseur Buyer (PMSg Arnel C. Attaban) and the Affidavit of the Arrest (PSSg Gerald G.
Gonzaga, the representative of the media was called but the same became futile?

Prosecution: Denied.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

b. There was no representative from the media during the conduct of the buy bust operation?

Prosecution: Denied.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

c. In the excerpt of police blotter, the representative of the DOJ and the Barangay Captain Nestor Bueno are
only present during the conduct of the inventory and marking?

Prosecution: Denied.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

d. The alleged buy bust operation was NOT witnessed by the representative of the DOJ and the Barangay
Captain?

Prosecution: Denied.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

e. That the representative of the DOJ and the Barangay Captain has no personal knowledge as to the conduct
of the buy bust operation?
Prosecution: Denied.

Aimee: Would the prosecution admit that:

f. The urine sample of the accused turned out to be NEGATIVE of the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride?

Prosecution: Denied.

ISSUES

Judge: For the prosecution.

Prosecution: WON the accused is guilty the offense charged?

NOTE: Then our turn na.

Judge: For defense.

NOTE: Lahat ng dineny na proposals ng Prosecution, yun ang magiging factual issues ng defense.

Aimee: Our first factual issue, your honor….

WON:
a. In the Affidavit of the Poseur Buyer (PMSg Arnel C. Attaban) and the Affidavit of the Arrest (PSSg Gerald G.
Gonzaga, the representative of the media was called but the same became futile?
b. There was no representative from the media during the conduct of the buy bust operation;
c. In the excerpt of police blotter, the representative of the DOJ and the Barangay Captain Nestor Bueno are only
present during the conduct of the inventory and marking;
d. The alleged buy bust operation was NOT witnessed by the representative of the DOJ and the Barangay Captain;
e. The representative of the DOJ and the Barangay Captain has no personal knowledge as to the conduct of the buy
bust operation;
f. The urine sample of the accused turned out to be NEGATIVE of the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride

MARKING OF EXHIBITS

Documentary Exhibits

Court : Marking of Exhibits of Prosecution

Prosecutor : We pray that the affidavit of ……. marked as “Exhibit A”

Court : Mark it.

(Etc, hangang ma-present ang lahat ng exhibit)

Court : Marking of Exhibits

Defense
Aimee : We pray, your honor, that the urine result test of the accused with
Chemistry Report No. PDEARO2-DT22-029-001, will be marked as
“Exhibit 1”
Court : Is that all?

Aimee : Yes, your Honor.

Court : Show your documents to the Prosecution

Prosecution, do you admit the genuineness and due execution of Exhibits
1 of the Defense?
Prosecution : (blah blah blah)

Witnesses

Court : Witnesses for the Prosecution.

Prosecution : (blah blah blah)

Yung nasa nformation…….

Prosecution has 7 witnesses

Court
: Witnesses for the Defense
Aimee : 1. Accused Jaymark Ebojo Y Tabao
2. Forensic Chemist Cherry P. Maximo/Jomar L. Concepcion
3. The friend of the accused, _______________

Court : Only 3 witnesses?

The court takes note of your Exhibit 1. Who is going to testify on said
document?

Aimee : Forensic Chemist Cherry P. Maximo/Jomar L. Concepcion, as two of our

witnesses, your honor.

Court : He will be a common witness?

Aimee : Yes, your Honor.

Court : Forensic Chemist Cherry P. Maximo/Jomar L. Concepcion will be

common witnesses but they will testify on different account

Aimee : Yes, your Honor.