Observation Court Proceedings

This is my observation on the court proceedings conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, P.D. Monfort North, Dumangas, Iloilo on August 4, 2011 at 1:30 in the afternoon in relation to the Petition to Post Bail filed by accused Melionito Ostaga in two (2) counts of Rape by Carnal Knowledge in Relation to Republic Act 7610, filed against him by private complainant Jenny Ann Laboro and docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-4431 and Criminal Case No. 09-4432 . The court session was conducted by Hon. Edgardo L. Catilo, Assisting Judge of the aforementioned trial court. Upon entry of the Honorable Assisting Judge, the Court Interpreter announced the start of the session and that silence should be enjoined during the conduct of the hearing. The Ecunimical Prayer for the court was prayed, thereafter, the Judge called the session in Order. The cases were then called by the Court Interpreter. There are twenty eight (28) cases to be heard. Those cases for arraignment was called first. All the accused who were present and have their lawyers were arraigned and were disposed first. After the disposal of those cases for arraignment, the pre-trial conference was then conducted for those cases scheduled for pre-trial conference on that day and were disposed after the above-stated proceedings. Cases scheduled for trial were then called. Those cases which were not ready to be tried were also disposed with only cases ready for trial remained in the courtroom. On the other hand, preliminary conference for cases ready and scheduled on that day were conducted on separate venue. Two (2) cases ready for hearing were then jointly called by the Court Interpreter considering that only one (1) accused and one (1) complainant were involved on the two (2) criminal cases, but with different dates of incidents, the reason why two (2) criminal cases for rape were filed against the accused. After the aforementioned cases were called, Pros. Vicente Go entered his appearance as Public Prosecutor , thereby authorizing the Private Prosecutor to prosecute the above-mentioned cases. Atty. Noel Palomado then entered his appearance as Private Prosecutor, emphasizing that he is prosecuting under the direct supervision and control of the Public Prosecutor assigned in the said court. Atty. Stephen Palmares likewise entered his appearance as counsel for the accused. Atty. Palomado informed the court that he will be presenting one (1) witness in the person of the private complainant in the two (2) criminal cases.

The private complainant was placed in the witness stand. After getting the personal circumstances of the witness by the Court Interpreter, Atty. Palomado manifested on the purpose of the testimony of his witness. The prosecution wanted to point out that the accused was the one who forcibly raped the victim in two (2) separate instances in two (2) separate dates. The Private Prosecutor likewise conferred with the witness on how the alleged crime of rape was done on her person and the circumstances surrounding the two (2) incidents. He wanted to establish the guilt of the accused as the one responsible for the aforementioned crimes. After the direct testimony of the private complainant was terminated, Atty. Palmares, counsel for the accused conducted his cross-examination on the witness. He tried to misled the

witness as to how the rape was done to her since the public plaza/basketball court of the barangay where the incidents happened was surrounded by houses and its impossible for the residents who lived in the aforesaid area not to hear if in case the victim had shouted for help. After plenty of questions were being asked by the counsel for the accused on the witness, the cross-examination was terminated. After the termination of the cross-examination on the witness, the Court asked clarificatory questions on the witness regarding the alleged two (2) incidents of rape which were done to her. The testimony of the private complainant was then terminated and the witness was discharged from the witness stand. The prosecution then asked for the continuance of the presentation of its witnesses. No documentary evidence was marked by both the prosecution and the defense since the markings were already done during the preliminary conference of the two (2) cases. After the trial of the above-stated two (2) criminal cases, the session was adjourned at around 4:15 in the afternoon of said date.