Teresa Lovely C.

Rebatis

Practice Court 2

COMMENTS ON COURT OBSERVATION

Date: March 1, 2018

Court: Branch 5, Family Court

Hon. Emily San Gaspar- Gito
Case: Criminal Case (Slight Physical Injury involving minor)
Prosecutor: Atty. Loly Aquino - Madduma
Defense: Atty. Mario T. Dionisio, Jr.
Matter: Presentation of Prosecutor’s evidence
Facts: Minor witness-complainant (Grade 11 student) testified as to the events related to the
mauling, and pointed out 1 of the accused who was in the court room.
Observer’s 1. The trial started at around 8:35 am, more or less on time. It was orderly
Comments: conducted. There was a microphone, hence, the Judge’s voice was very clear.
The court interpreter also spoke clearly and promptly interprets the statements
accordingly.
On examination of witness
1. The order of examination of witness consisted of: direct examination, cross-
examination, re-direct examination and re-cross examination

2. The prosecutor asked questions to elicit material facts about the mauling
incident (asking what, who why, when, where, how questions) then proceeded
to the offer of Judicial Affidavit executed by the witness
Comment: I observed that the offering of JA was preceded by direct examination. This
was quite different from the books. I understood that offering of testimony using JA,
must be offered first before asking additional questions directly from the witness.

3. The defense counsel asked leading questions.

On Judicial Notice
1. The Judge took judicial notice of the condition - the distance (around 12
meters) of the lamp posts (as source of light) from the persons involved in the
mauling incident

On presentation of documentary evidence (Best evidence rule)

1. The original copy of the witness’ Certificate of Live Birth was requested

On testimonial knowledge
1. The Judge asked clarificatory questions, to elicit information which will establish
relevant facts, in relation to the elements of the offense charged and test the
witness qualification to perceive and make known such perception
(i.e. how long has the witness looked at the accused’ face,
what distinctive features can he remember about the accused so as to
adequately identify the person (accused) himself; and
the vision/clarity of the witness’ vision (20-20 or not wearing eyeglasses).