PRACTICE COURT 1 BAUTISTA, BUENAVISTA MAE M.

OCTOBER 30, 2013 4S

My classmates and I have visited the Hall of Justice in Muntinlupa City to observe what happens in a Preliminary Investigation, Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, and a Special Proceeding. We have visited the Hall of Justice for three separate days to observe such trials and these are the observations that I have noticed. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION First, we had to observe a Preliminary Investigation last October 9, 2013, so we observed the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa, Fiscal Michelle Divina-Delfin which accommodated allowed us to observe every complaint she handled. Preliminary Investigation is defined under Rule 112 under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. (1a)

Fiscal Delfin let us observed every Preliminary Investigation she had, but, before we can observe the case, she told us that a preliminary investigation is made for clarificatory of and reception of evidences. Fiscal first asked consent the parties to the complaint whether we can be allowed to observe the case and explaining to them that we a Fourth Year Law Students of San Beda College Alabang School of Law and we are there to observe as a requirement to such subject. There a four different complaints that were filed in the City Prosecutors Office; first was Burlot vs Yablane, a complaint against trespass to dwelling, child abuse, grave threats, illegal possession of firearms and carnapping ; the second case is Imperial Homes Corp. vs Arvin Aleja Repia which was a case in violation of Art. 310 (Qualified Theft) and Article 172 (Falsification of Commercial Documents), in this case I have learned that in an Affidavit of Witness, a notarized Affidavit can be made only in case of absence of the Prosecutor, so as a remedy, the Fiscal made the witnesses to sign the affidavit again in front of her. The third case was of physical injuries and bullying. When the complaint was first filed, the age and name of the defendant was not known, but it discovered thereafter that the defendants age was 16 years old. Upon discovery of the age of the defendant, the Fiscal told the complainant that the case should not be filed before the Fiscal but it must be filed before the Barangay Council wherein it would undergo Diversion Proceedings and after such a Diversion Program shall be made in case where the defendant is a minor and there is no discernment. In case where the defendant acted with discernment, an

intervention program shall be made. This was done in accordance with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. The last complaint was a complaint for rape (Calderon vs Santayana). This complaint was very intriguing for me because in this case, the complainant was a minor of 14 years of age and the defendant was 22 years old. The defendant is the brother of the wife of the brother of the complainants father. The defendant did not appear for the second time, and the victim was also pregnant. Upon the conducting of questions by the Fiscal, it was discovered that upon the testimony of the minor complainant, rape did not occur but instead, they should file a case of Child Abuse under RA 7610. I was appalled that the testimony of the minor complainant was not consistent with the written testimony and it made me believe that rape did not occur since the circumstances did not constitute rape. Upon observance of the Preliminary Investigations, I discovered that in cases of minor children and minor defendants, the law is more sensitive to the extent that it protects the child from the harshness of court trial. CRIMINAL TRIAL Last October 16, 2013, we observe a criminal trial in Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 207 which is also a Family Court which is under Judge Philip Aguinaldo. The proceedings consists of several criminal cases most of which is about cases of abuses against children. In the first case, the Clerk of Court read the decision rendered by the Judge convicting the accused of rape with a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with no chance of

parole. The proceedings that followed where arraignment proceedings, it is common that the accused always renders a plea of not guilty. In most cases, the accused and the parties of the case where not present, which in this case, the court is not to blame for the slow disposition of their cases. The case that caught my attention is the case of People vs Albao. This case includes the examination of a child witness because the victim here is around the age of 15 of years old, which in law, she is still considered a minor. As I have observed, when the examination of the child witness was about to begin, the judge told the people who are not needed in the trial to leave the court in order to conduct the examination of a child witness by the prosecutor and the PAO lawyer. The rules provide that in an examination of a child witness, the court is more lenient and sensitive to the examination of a child witness. Upon observation, when the judge conducted the examination, the judge removed his robe, when he talked to the child witness in order to prevent any intimidation or fear on the part of the child. When the examination was made the presence of the mother and a social worker was present. Upon examination of the child witness, the statements that were given by the child were inconsistent with the testimony she made in writing and also upon the presentation of the evidences. It was also shown that when the rape occurred, there was no presence of any force or threat since there was no knife and gun that was found.

The RTC of Muntinlupa in criminal cases, as I have observed, has made no delay in disposition of cases. I have also observed that in the cases that were tried, mostly the lawyer who represented the defendant was the lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office. CIVIL TRIAL We observe the civil court yesterday (October 29, 2013) under RTC Muntinlupa Branch 204 which is under Judge Juanita Guerero. Three cases where under trial that time, the first case is already submitted for resolution, the third case was suspended until prior notice and in the second case (Marcbilt vs Prudential) the prosecutor conducted a direct examination of the witness who is the VP for operations of Petitioner Company. However there was no cross examination because the opposing counsel request for the deferment of such for the reason that the defendant has just received the judicial affidavit. As I have observed, the civil trial is more complicated than a criminal trial because of the terms used and the counsel for the parties were more formal than that of a criminal case. SPECIAL PROCEEDING The proceeding was for the Recognition of Foreign Divorce. The petitioner here was a dual citizen and the Fiscal was the counsel for the state since there was no Solicitor General present. It was to give credence to the family law in Australia since the petitioner is a citizen of Australia and of the Philippines being a dual citizen. The case set for continuance

because from what I have observed, the counsel of the petitioner, have not yet given sufficient evidence to support the recognition. CONCLUSION Being in the courtroom and observing trials has enlightened me a lot. I have discovered that even if you are already a member of the Bar, you can still make mistakes even on the most basic of the law and procedures in Remedial Law. It made me feel that what I read in books is somewhat a little different from what I experienced in the courtroom and I think I gave an edge to be a better Bedan Lawyer, and not to make the same mistakes that the lawyers and counsels made when I observed the courtroom.