CONTEXT OF THE CASE:

Arianna, Elmira, and Marialyn are siblings. May lupa sila na bigay ng kanilang parents. Arianna
and Elmira sold their share to Carl and Sam while Marialyn did not. (mag asawa sina Carl and
Sam)
After bilhin yung land, pina-register ito sa office of the Assessor of Marikina City and pina-
notarize sa notary public. Pero in the deed, it was made to appear that all of Juana’s children,
including Marialyn, sold the property to the spouses. The signature of Marialyn we’re forged.
Carl and Sam alleged that “employees of the Assessor’s office” committed the falsification, hindi
sila.

CHARACTERS (chz idk the proper term for this)

JUDGE - CARAGGAYAN
ATTY. - DUEÑAS
PROSECUTOR - VALOIS
Q.D EXAMINER - CABANO-ANG
CAMERA MAN – GELLANGARIN

MOCK TRIAL SCRIPT

Judge: This court is now in session for the trial of the case regarding the alleged falsification of
documents involving the sale of a parcel of land.
Judge: Is the prosecution ready?
Prosecutor: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge: Is the defense ready?
Defense Attorney: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge: Let's proceed with the opening statements. Prosecutor, you may begin.
Prosecutor: Thank you, Your Honor. Today we are here to uncover the truth behind a deceitful
act of falsification. The evidence will show that the defendants, Carl and Sam, arranged a scheme
to fraudulently obtain ownership of a property by falsifying a deed of sale. Through witness
testimonies and concrete evidence, we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty
of this crime.
Defense Attorney: Objection, Your Honor! The prosecutor is making prejudicial statements
before the trial has even begun.
Judge: Objection Sustained. Prosecutor, please refrain from making prejudicial statements in
your opening statement.
Prosecutor: My apologies, Your Honor.
Judge: Defense, you may proceed with your opening statement.
Defense Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor. Today we stand before you to defend the innocence
of our clients, Carl and Sam. The prosecution will present an evidence that proves guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. However, we will demonstrate that this evidence is insufficient to convict my
clients of the alleged crime. We ask you to carefully consider the evidence and deliver a verdict
of not guilty for Carl and Sam. Thank you.
Judge: Thank you.
Will the prosecution call their witness?
Prosecutor: Yes, You Honor. Prosecution would like to call Eve Polastri to the stand.
Judge: Miss Polastri, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth so help you God?
Document Examiner: I do.
Prosecutor: Could you please state your name and profession for the record?
Document Examiner: My name is Eve Polastri and I am a certified document examiner with
expertise in handwriting analysis.
Prosecutor: Thank you. Now, I present to you Exhibit A, the original signature of Marialyn on a
document unrelated to this case. And Exhibit B, the forged signature of Marialyn on the deed of
sale in question. Can you confirm whether these signatures match?

(we need a laptop here and a screen para ma-present yung exhibit A and B na sinasabi ni
prosecutor which is yung signature ko na Activity 2 natin)

Document Examiner: After careful analysis, it is clear that the signature on Exhibit B, the
forged document, differs significantly from the genuine signature of Marialyn on Exhibit A. It is
my professional findings that the signature on the deed of sale was indeed forged.
Prosecutor: Thank you. No further questions, Your Honor.
Judge: Defense, do you have any cross-examination?
Defense Attorney: Yes, Your Honor.
Defense Attorney: Isn't it true that handwriting analysis can sometimes be subjective and open
to interpretation?
Document Examiner: While there may be some subjectivity involved, my analysis is based on
established principles and techniques in the field of forensic document examination.
Defense Attorney: But isn't it possible that the differences in the signatures could be attributed
to factors other than forgery, such as variations in writing style?
Document Examiner: It's possible, but in this case, the discrepancies between the signatures are
significant and indicative of forgery.
Defense Attorney: Thank you. No further questions, Your Honor.
Judge: Thank you. You may step down, witness. Prosecutor, you may call your next witness.
Prosecutor: No more witness, Your Honor.
Judge: We will now hear a closing statement from the defense.
Defense Attorney: Your Honor, the prosecution has failed to provide concrete evidence that
conclusively proves my clients' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Handwriting analysis, as
presented by the prosecution's witness, is not infallible and can be subject to interpretation. The
discrepancies in the signatures may indeed be attributed to various factors, and it is not enough to
convict Carl and Sam based solely on speculation. I urge you to carefully consider the lack of
substantial evidence and to deliver a verdict of not guilty for my clients. Thank you.
Judge: Prosecution you may begin with your closing statement.
Prosecutor: Your Honor, the evidence presented in this trial leaves no doubt that Carl and Sam
conspired to forge signatures in order to unlawfully obtain ownership of a property. The expert
testimony clearly indicates significant differences between the genuine and forged signatures,
providing strong evidence of forgery. We cannot let such deceitful actions go unpunished. I
implore you to uphold justice by finding Carl and Sam guilty of the crimes they have committed.
Thank you.
Judge: After reviewing the evidence and considering the arguments presented by both parties,
this court finds the defendants, Carl and Sam, guilty of the charges of falsification of documents
involving the sale of a parcel of land. The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the
signatures on the deed of sale were forged, providing convincing evidence of guilt. Therefore, I
hereby pronounce Carl and Sam guilty as charged. Sentencing will be scheduled accordingly.
This court is adjourned.