Candelaria, Michelle Dulce Mariano

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | Sunday 1-4PM

Arellano University School of Law

COURT VISIT OBSERVATION REPORT

Date of Observation or Visit:

05 March 2015 (Thursday)

Time of Observation or Visit:

8:30 AM to 10:45 AM (Morning Session)

Venue:
Region)

Regional Trial Court (First Judicial

Branch:

Branch 30 (Family Court)

Place of Court:

San Fernando City, La Union

Presiding Judge:

Hon. Alpino P. Florendo

Provincial Prosecutor:
Cases)

Pros. Yvonne B. Lacsina (Provincial

City Prosecutor:

Pros. Irene C. Corpuz

OIC Branch Clerk of Court:

Court Interpreter:

(City Cases)

Ms. Allen T. Sarmiento

Ms. Elnora E. Manangan

Court Stenographer:

Ms. Teresita P. Marigza

Process Server:

Mr. Severino M. Marigza

CASES OBSERVED
1. CRIMINAL

CASE NO.

9638 PEOPLE

OF THE

PHILIPPINES

VS PETER MARCOS Y

SUMBAGAN
FOR: HEARING ON THE MOTION (REFER CASE TO DIVERSION COMMITTEE)

FRUSTRATED MURDER
ATTY. CRISTINA JENNY R CARINO

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

2. CIVIL CASE NO. 9132 RONNIE ALMOJUELA HERNANDEZ

GARCIA-HERNANDEZ
FOR: PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE

VS

MARBEN JOY LEMON

DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

ATTY. RODRIGO G. RUPINTA COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

ATTY. RONALD G. DINOS COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
3. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10219 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RAYMUND APIADO Y DACANAY
FOR: CONTINUATION OF HEARING

RAPE
ATTY. MANOLITO

HIDALGO

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

4. CRIMINAL CASE NO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JERICHO NATARTE Y EMPISO

FOR: CONTINUATION OF HEARING
VIOL. OF SEC.

5 (B) OF RA 7610

ATTY: CRISTINA JENNY R. CARINO

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

OBSERVATION IN GENERAL
COURTROOM

ENVIRONMENT

The courtroom has a sitting capacity of approximately 20 to 25 people

(maximum). The room is well-lighted and ventilated (air-conditioned). It was noted
that the justice chamber appeared to be a hoary or old building since it was built in
the early 1900s. The courtroom also served as a storage room because some
timeworn documents and other court files were stacked on a corner and you can
see it instantly upon entering the room. Observers (including the Judge) were easily
distracted as people were entering and leaving the courtroom.

THE

JUDGE
The judge appeared to have things well under control in his courtroom

and kept the proceedings moving forward efficiently. He spoke clearly and
distinctly so that everyone in the courtroom could hear. However, he
displayed some impatience in his comments and facial expressions when the
defense attorney (in Case No. 4) fumbled about during cross-examination.
His frustration was understandable, but it seemed inappropriate for the judge
to display such emotions.

During the cross examination of witnesses, the judge leniently

examined the witness on the stand, he even asked the question in Ilokano for
the witness to fully understand the question before answering, and he also
interprets the answer of the witness.

The Judge (in case No. 4) directly saying to the defense counsel during
the cross examination of the witness, that the defense must stick to the alibi
wherein the sole purpose of the cross examination is the only whereabouts of

the accused. No need to ask questions that is already on record the Judge
said.

The judge, in many times, asked clarificatory questions to the witness,

defense

counsel

and

prosecutor.

The

judge

is

very

respectful

and

accommodating, brilliant and notable.

THE

PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor provided a big contrast to the defense counsel. She

was very confident and offhand. She did not shuffle papers or take long
pauses during questioning to consult her notes. She simply asked questions
in a very direct, concise way. Ms. Prosecutor looked very professional in a
conservative dark suit and low heels. Her appearance in no way detracted
from her performance.

THE DEFENSE COUNSEL

I was, quite frankly, very unimpressed with the Defense counsels

(Cases No. 3 and No. 4). They appeared disorganized and unsure. They spent
a lot of time shuffling papers between questions, which caused everyone
(herself /himself included) to lose the focus of the questioning. They both
spoke in a monotone and so low that I had to strain to hear them.

In Case No. 3, the defense counsels appearance was a distraction. His

suit did not fit him well, and in my opinion, he needed a haircut. His rumpled
appearance underscored the impression that he was not very professional.

The defense counsel in case No. 4 was very respectful towards the
witness during cross-examination. I found this to be odd, since I thought that
usually a defense attorney will be uncouth to the prosecutors witnesses.

The defense counsel in Case No. 2 displayed disrespectful behavior (in

my opinion) when asked how much is the monthly income of the respondent,
he didnt knew the answer and instead of asking permission first from the
judge to consult his client, what he did was asked his client directly in the
courtroom. His client is 3-4 meters away from him. I also observed that he
didnt knew some vital facts of the case, for example the Judge asked the
defense if who is in custody of the child and what is the age of the child, the
defense didnt knew the answer to the question, instead the clerk of court
answered the question based on the records.

THE COURT PERSONNEL

The bailiff for the court was exceptionally helpful. He explained the
nature of the case and provided me with a copy of the docket listing the
name of the case, the names of the attorneys, and the charges.
Also, the Court Interpreter is very spontaneous and uses the
appropriate words for the witness to understand the questions being asked.
Bravo!

THE ACCUSED RIGHTS

The accuseds rights were uphold, protect and given due respect as to their
identity in cases No. 1 and 4, where both the accused are minors. The Judge
instructed both the defense and prosecution, that in the manner of questioning the
witness, both counsel must refer to the accused as a minor not his real name so
as to protect the rights of the said minor-accused.

RATE

I rate RTC Branch 30 of San Fernando City, La Union with 3 Stars.

Good Job. I was impressed with the Prosecutor and the Judges performance.