Court Visit Final

PRACTICE COURT 1
First Semester, SY. 2018-2019
COURT OBSERVATION
Procedures to be observed:
1. Arraignment
2. Pre- trial for Criminal Case
3. Pre- trial for Civil Case
4. Direct Examination of a witness
5. Cross Examination of Prosecution Witness
6. Promulgation of Judgment in Criminal Case
7. Initial Hearing on Special Proceeding
Submitted By:
Rachelle E. Bonita
Submitted To:
Atty. Peter Cañamo

(Asst. Dean, USPF College of Law)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 19, CEBU CITY
Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Public Prosecutor: Hon. Aida A. Sanchez
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Roh Dundee Absin
Branch Clerk of Court: Atty. Irish Claire Cantillas
Branch Interpreter: Ronalyn Fe Pagusara
Branch Stenographer: Emily Mae Ferrer
Case Number: R-CEB-16-05576-CR

Pre- Trial for Criminal Case
For: Violation of Section 12 R.A. 9165
People of the Philippines versus Edwin Colina Aglipa
Counsel for the Accused: Atty. Henry Rey Recuya
Facts:
A complaint filed against the accused Edwin Colina Aglipa in violation of Section 12 R.A. 9165. On
September 18, 2016 at around 12:45 midnight in Cebu City, he was caught in possession of one
aluminum strip tin foil. The clerk of court tells the abuser the crimes it is charging him with. Aglipa
pleads guilty for drug user. He was charged for the unauthorized possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs which is a clear violation section 12, R.A
9165. In which states:
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs. -The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have
under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the
body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required
to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their
profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
As per Atty Recuya, Edwin's counsel, he is willing to enter in plea bargaining under section 15 of the
similar act. Section 15 of R.A 9165 provides:
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a
minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time,
he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve
(12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section
11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Accused pleads guilty for drug use under section 15 for the use of dangerous drugs. His plea was
accepted by the court.
Judgment:
Edwin Colina Aglipa was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violation of section 15 of RA 9165
instead of Section 12. He was sentenced to 6 months rehabilitation in government center and he must
be evaluated first by Dr. David Baron of Dangerous Drugs Board for recovering patients at Carreta
Extension Cebu City and advised Aglipa to abide this recommendation.
Observation:
The procedure under pre-trial was properly laid. The abuser was given the right to a lawyer. He was
able to hear and understand the allegation against him. It was being uttered in dialect so the abuser
could have understood easily. That upon knowing the charged to him he pleads guilty.


Continuation of Direct Examination of Prosecution Witness
For: Violation of Section 15 R.A. 9165
People of the Philippines versus Alexander Calderon Go
Counsel for the Accused: Atty. Angeline Cheska Payopanin
Facts:
The presence of the accused and the witness were called. However, the continuation of the direct
examination of a witness cannot proceed because the chemistry report of the urine sample of the
accused is not yet available. The accused was assisted by the PAO lawyer, Atty. Angeline Cheska
Payopanin. PO1 Leonil Awit of Talisay Police Station is the witness.
The test was conducted in Prime Laboratory. The prosecutor, Fiscal Sanchez proposed to chemist to
this court the report and testify therefore. But the forensic chemist cannot present because he is on
trial with another sala.
Judgement:
When the case was called for the continuation of the direct testimony of the witness, PO1 Leonil Awit
of Talisay Police Station, as manifested by Prosecutor Sanchez. PO1 Awit cannot be presented for
identification of the result of foreign image examination of the urine sample of the accused. The said
report is not yet available clearly because the Forensic Team is on trial in another sala and cannot
present as witness of the said report. For the meantime, the testimony of the witness PO1 Awit is
suspended and in the meantime prosecutor Sanchez advised for the issuance of subpoena duces
tecum and subpoena ad testificandum. Chemistry Report No. DD-8281-60 and the Confirmatory
Report and to testify on January 29, 2019 at 8:30 AM which is the next hearing.
Observation:
The offer of testimony cannot be had by reason that the forensic chemist is on trial in another sala.
However as I observed, the manner was procedural. The fiscal moved to suspend the testimony of the
witness and advised for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum on the next
setting.

Case Number: 20124-CEB

Special Proceedings: Petition for Allowance of Notarial Will of Elva Tulda Placencia under Rule 27,
Salvador Placencia Fontanoza Jr. and Fabron Placencia Fontanoza
Initial Presentation of Witness
For: All Other Special and Special Proceedings Petition for Protection order R.A. 9262
Counsel for the Petitioner: Atty. Don Revalle
Petitioner: Salvador Placencia Fontanoza Jr.
Facts:
Petition for allowance of notarial will, Atty. Don Revalle for the petitioner. Melchor Villamor Jr., 42 years
old, married, Talisay City Cebu as witness. Counsel’s petitioner presented his witness for the
identification of Judicial Affidavit executed by the witness and the will of the disease. Atty. Revalle
further asked the witness if he was able to receive and read the Judicial Affidavit. Witness has affirmed
the veracity of the Judicial Affidavit. Thus:
Atty. Revalle: Is the name and signature in the Judicial Affidavit is yours?
Witness: Yes.
Atty. Revalle: There is a will. If I will show you the will, will you able to identify it?
Witness: Yes.
The will is attached at the back of the Judicial Affidavit. There are 3 witnesses and they were able to
present the two. Verily, is it the presentation of the third and last witness.
Judgment:
The counsel has manifested his intention to submit the formal offer of exhibit to rest the case. He ask
15 days for him to submit it. The court has granted the 15 days request of the petitioner which
commenced from this day, August 8, 2018. Petitioner rested its case.
Observation:
Since it is the last presentation of the witness, the procedure focused on the verification from the
witness with regards to the validity of the will. The Q and A from the petitioner’s counsel was so
important in order to rest the case.
BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY
Presiding Judge: Hon. James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan

Public Prosecutor: Pros. Maria Lourdes C. Bragat-Quilitorio
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Rhyan Jhon C. Pagaran
Branch Clerk of Court: Cecilia Mijares
Branch Interpreter: Nyclyde Mabanag
Branch Stenographer: Cherrilyn Trazo
Case Number: R-CEB-15-00260-CV

Pre-trial for Civil Case
For: Collection of Sum of Money
Mia E. Sanchez versus Paolo A. Cruz
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Atty. Esteban Colasito
Facts:
The proceeding was similar with the previous court that I visited, Regional Trial Court, however the
case is different. The latter pertains to a criminal case whereas now it is a civil case. I arrived at the
court precisely when the hearing was about to begin. It was the first case of the day. The parties were
called by the court staff and the case was read. Today it was the defense’s turn to present their
witnesses and evidence. However, the counsel for the defense called the attention of the court and
moved that the pre-trial be postponed for the reason that their witnesses will not be available to state
his testimony. He also states the importance of the witness to the case of the defense so that their
motion be granted by the court. Fortunately, the court granted the motion and the case was
rescheduled for another hearing.
Judgment:
Because of the absence of the witness which may enable him to state his testimony, the court granted
the motion raised by the defense counsel by reasons of its unavailability and that the case is
rescheduled for another set of hearing. The setting was moved on January 24, 2019.
Observation:
The procedure in pre-trial on civil case did not pursue because of the absence of the witness.
And so what is the purpose of the pre-trial in a civil case? The purpose is for the court to consider the:
(1) the possibility of an amicable settlement or submission to alternative mode of dispute resolution;
(2) the simplification of issues; (3) the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; (4) the
possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary
proofs; (5) the limitation of the number of witnesses; (6) the advisability of a preliminary reference of
issues to a commissioner, (7) the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefore be found; (8) the advisability or
necessity of suspending the proceeding; and (9) such other matters as may aid in the prompt
disposition of the action. As may be seen, the overall purpose is really to simplify, abbreviate, facilitate
and expedite the case.
Clearly, this may proceed the moment the witness provides testimony on the next setting.
BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY
Presiding Judge: Hon. James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan

Public Prosecutor: Pros. Maria Lourdes C. Bragat-Quilitorio
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Rhyan Jhon C. Pagaran
Branch Clerk of Court: Cecilia Mijares
Branch Interpreter: Nyclyde Mabanag
Branch Stenographer: Cherrilyn Trazo
Criminal Case Number: CBU-05-60776

Promulgation of Judgment in Criminal Case
For: the case of Homicide
People versus Joe Octavio
Facts:
The case of homicide was called on for the promulgation of decision. The judge handed the court’s
findings to the interpreter. The interpreter asked the accused to stand before the court as he read to
him the decision. I noticed that before directly proceeding to the sentence there has to be a recap on
how the proceedings went through from arraignment to trial. Of course, only the salient points were
mentioned until the decision was reached. In this case, accused was found guilty for the crime of
homicide and was sentenced to serve a minimum of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16)
years. The counsel for the accused then informed the court that they were filing for an appeal and
applied for bail. It shall be noted that accused herein has already enjoyed bail as a matter of right. It
was then given by discretion of the honorable court that additional bail was required in the amount of
40,000 pesos (as a result of the doubled amount required by the judge).
Judgment:
The court rendered judgment against the accused. Accused was found guilty for the crime of homicide
and was sentenced to serve a minimum of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years.
The counsel for the accused then informed the court that they were filing for an appeal and applied for
bail.
Observation:
How is the Judgment Promulgated?
1. The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the
court in which it was rendered; and
2. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated
by the clerk of court.
In the case of the foregoing, the judgment was read by the interpreter of the court against the
accused. And even do the recap from arraignment of the case up until trial. Thus, proper procedure in
promulgation of judgment during court visit was properly observed.
Acting Presiding Judge: Hon. Cesar P. Bordalba

Public Prosecutor: Asst. Cebu City Pros. Ramon O. Carisma
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Cesar C. Gariando
Clerk of Court: Atty. Consolacion A.J. Trazo-Lape
Acting Court Interpreter: Orville Noel Egos
Court Stenographer: Leomicesa C. De Leon Cientos

ARRAIGNMENT
For: Violation of RA 9287
People of the Philippines vs. REA M. ARCILLO
Arresting Officer: PO3 Albert Sator, PO3 Kint Malacaste, PO1 Jonalyn L. Olivar & PO1 Mary Ann T.
Damoslog
Facts:
Rea M. Arcillo was accused of violating the RA 9287 or the “An Act increasing the Penalties for Illegal
Numbers Games”. The accused was arraigned on August 8, 2018. The appearances of the
prosecution was called and Asst. Cebu City Pros. Ramon O. Carisma presented the State and Atty.
Cesar C. Gariando for the accused. The complaint was read to the accused. The judge instructed the
interpreter to read out the complaint to the accused. The complaint was read as follows:
“Ikaw Rea M. Arcillo gikiha ka og pang isyu og swertres kaniadtong bulan Enero petsa bayte
singko (25) sa ala una i-medya (1:30pm) dinhi sa Syudad sa Sugbo nga nasakpan ka nga
adunay stub nga papel og carbon paper, ballpen ug kwarta nga syento baynte (120) nga walay
pagtugot sa PCSO. Supak kini sa balaod. Sad-an ka or dili?”
The accused asked the court for plea bargaining and pleaded guilty for lesser offense.
Judgment:
The plea to bargain for a lesser offense was granted and the accused was hereby fined.
Observation:
During arraignment, he is made fully aware of possible loss of freedom or of life. It must be strictly
complied with as it is intended to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. The constitutional protection is part of the due
process. And it was properly made during court visit.

Case Number: CBU-103289

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
For: Cross Examination of Defendants’ Second Witness- Rubylyn Manayon November 17, 2017
11:30AM
Virginia Suelto versus Amparo Sumagang, Et Al.
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Atty. Socrates Cabonillas
Counsel for the Defendant: Atty. Nowyn Jangad
Facts:
This is a cross examination of the second witness of defendants in the person of Rubylyn Manayon
who is a substituted defendant. The witness therefore, would be testifying under the same oath.
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
(Atty. Cabonillas to the Witness)
Q: Ms. Manayon Rubylyn, you mentioned in your affidavit that you are the daughter of Dolores Dico?
A: Yes.
Q: Dolores Dico is among the four defendants in the case?
A: Yes.
Q: You also mentioned that at the time of filing of this case, is it only the original defendants who
opposed?
A: Yes.
Q: And you also mentioned that aside from the four defendats, one Edgardo Jumao-as also resided in
the lot?
A: Yes.
Q: But would you agree with me that he is not one of those who opposed against Virginia Suelto?
A: No.
Atty. Cabonillas verify that the owner of the claimed lot was Rubylyn’s great grandparents,
grandparents and her parents. And the witness said yes. Tax declaration was shown and that the
persons appearing thereto was the previous owner, Lorenzo Escarda and Marciana Escarda. Which
are not the grandparents of the witness. Witness shows a Tax Declaration of her great grandparents
which was passed on to her grandparents and passed on to Lorenzo Escarda. Rubylyn says to the
court that the lot was mortgaged in a fictitious manner to Lorenzo and it was Lorenzo who made a pre
patent and titling of the property. Rubylyn admits that she has no personal knowledge on the case but
was just heard it from her relatives whom are the four defendants. She admits that she was not yet
born at that time the reason that she has no actual knowledge. And all the story was relayed to her by
the four defendants.
Judgment:
Atty. Cabonillas, counsel for the plaintiff, conducted his cross examination on the second witness of
defendants in the person of Rubylyn Manayon, a substituted defendant, whose cross testimony was
terminated. The direct and recross- examination are hereby set on October 16, 2018 at 8:30am.
Observation:
Cross-examination by the opponent in the court was proper. Under section 6 of the Rules of Court in
Evidence:
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of the direct examination,
the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue.
The witness may be examined: (a) As to any matter stated in the direct examination (b) or any matter
connected therewith (c) as to the accuracy and truthfulness and freedom of the witness from interest
or bias, or the reverse and (d) upon all important facts bearing upon the issue.
Verily, the procedure in the conduct of cross-examination of prosecution witness was made proper.

Court Visit Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court Visit Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRACTICE COURT 1

First Semester, SY. 2018-2019

Atty. Peter Cañamo

Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Case Number: R-CEB-16-05576-CR

Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Case Number: R-CEB-16-06653-CR

Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Case Number: 20124-CEB

Presiding Judge: Hon. James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan

Case Number: R-CEB-15-00260-CV

Presiding Judge: Hon. James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan

Criminal Case Number: CBU-05-60776

How is the Judgment Promulgated?

Acting Presiding Judge: Hon. Cesar P. Bordalba

Case Number: R-CEB-18-05082-CR

Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Case Number: CBU-103289

Q: Dolores Dico is among the four defendants in the case?

You might also like