Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

First Judicial Region
Branch 59, Baguio City
February 15, 2016

Presiding Judge: HON. IVAN KIM B. MORALES

Trial Prosecutor: ATTY. RUTH B. BERNABE
Defense Council: ATTY. JULLIET CAMUYOT
Clerk of Court III:ATTY. JESSICA P. GUANSING
Court Interpreter II:RHODORA B. LAMBRANO
Court Stenographer II: Ms. ANALIZA MADRANIO
Crim.Case #: 38449 PP VS. GIAN CARLO FLORANCIA TUPAZ
For:THEFT
Complainant:Ms.JHEN CRUZ

ARRAIGNMENT

The proceeding started when the clerk of court called upon criminal case
number 38449 Pp. Vs. Gian Carlo FloranciaTupazfo violation of Theft scheduled for
arraignment on that day. Then both parties entered their appearance in court and
thenthedefense council stated that the accused is ready to be arraigned. The
accused proceeded in front of the judge then the clerk of court asked the accused in
what language or dialect he fully understand and speak. Then the accused
answered tagalong dialect. Then the clerk of court read the content of information
in Ilocano dialect which the accused fully understand and speak. Then the Clerk of

Court asked the accused on what his plea, then the accused pleaded not guilty
which assisted by his counsel then the Judge scheduled the next proceeding dated
May 2, 2016.

Stating that the undersigned accused Gian Carlo FloranciaTupaz committed

the crime of Theft in Baguio City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the said
court, above accused with intent to gain of such property of the complainant. After
the reading of the content of the information in tagalog dialect by the clerk of court
he then asked the accused if he understand the content of the information. Then
the accused answered yes and then the clerk of court asked him what your plea
is.Theaccused Gian Carlo FloranciaTupaz assisted by hiscouncil the said accused
entered a plea of not guilty. Then the judge referred the case for next proceeding
dated May 2, 2016.

Before the accused and the complainant leave the court they affixed their
signatures in the minutes of proceeding.

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
First Judicial Region
Branch 5 Baguio City
February 23, 2016

Presiding Judge: HON. MARIA LIGAYA V. ITLIONG RIVERA

Trial Prosecutor: ATTY. LEILANEE D. QUANGUEY
Defense Council: ATTY. ERICKSON IGNACIO
Clerk of Court III: ALEJANDRO D. GUERERO
Court Acting Interpreter: LYNDON M. LARON
Court Stenographer: PRECY GOZE/EDITH VILLARUBIA/GINA RAMIREZ/EVA PACIO
Crim.Case #:134219 PP VS. ARTEMIO MARIBHYA (DET)
For: THEFT

PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE

This case was called for Pre Trial Conference and both the defense and prosecutor
entered their appearance in court. However the private complainant is not around
for the second time considering that the court issued a notice for the said trial. This
lead to the defense council to move for dismissal of the case considering that the
private complainant was not attending for trial and the defense council believes
that this violate the right of the said accused for speedy trial. But before the
presiding judge answered the defense council he first asked the public prosecutor
for her comment and then the public prosecutor stated that she is only amenable
for provisionary dismissal of the case. After then the judge asked the defense
council to explain first the effect of provisionary dismissal of the case to the accused
which the latter he fully understand.

The presiding judge now renounces that criminal case #134219 PP VS. Atemio
Maribhay for theft is now under provisionary dismissal considering that the private
complainant is not attending for trail and the accused fully understand the effect of
provisionary dismissal and the public prosecutor agreed the same. The judge also
stated that the accused that was under detention will be released and a copy of the
provisionary dismissal of the case shall be furnished and sent to the private
complainant to his last known address.

Before the accused leave the court he then signs at the minute of proceeding.

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
First Judicial Region
Branch 4, Baguio City
Febraury 19, 2016

Presiding Judge: HON. MARIA LIGAYA V. ITLIONG

Trial Prosecutor: ATTY. ROLANDO T. VERGARA
Pao Lawyer: ATTY. LEILANE D QUANGEY
Acting Branch Clerk of Court: ATTY. ALEJANDRO D. GUERERO
Court Interpreter:LYNDON M. LARON
Court Stenographer:PRECY GOZE, EDITH VILLARUBIA , GING RAMIREZ AND EVA
PACIO
Crim.Case #:32905-R PP VS. GIDEON BORGIA AND RANDY BORGIA (detained)
For:MURDER

CONTINUATION OF TRIAL

The proceeding started when criminal case # 32905 -R PP VS. . Gigeon Borgia and
Randy Borgia for the crime of Murder was called by the court interpreter for the
defense council to conduct cross examination to the witness who was the same the
complainant. Both parties entered their appearance in court also the private
complainant and the accused is present in court. Then the judge asked the defense
if they are ready to conduct cross examination then they answered yes your honor.

The prosecutor was again called at the witness stand and the defense
conducted direct examination. The first direct examiner is Atty. Lianes Lawrence and
the second direct examiner is Atty. LielaneQuanqey. Atty. Lianes Lawrence ask
permission to the Judge if she can conduct direct examition and then the Judge
permitted him.The defense started her question by asking that in relation to the
judicial affidavit of the complainant.

The judge asked the defense counsel for cross examination and then the defense
asked the witness stating that while the witness was walking going home, he
noticed holding a firearm who is under the influenced of liquor suddenly shot the
victim to causing him to death in tagalong dialect.no further re-direct was
conducted .

General observation:
The clerk of court is clearly reading the information of the case inside the court
room during the preceding including the whole staff of the court. The presiding is
strictly observing every statement of the defense and the prosecutor including the
statement of the witness.

Conclusion:
With regard to the proper procedure during the presentation of evidence some rules
was strictly followed in this case despite that this case was just raffled to another
court of jurisdiction in order to tried the case and arrived at a just and firmed
decision.

Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities
First Judicial Region
Second Branch, Baguio City
February 18, 2016

Presiding Judge: HON. GLENDA T. ORTIS SORIANO

Private Prosecutor: ATTY. JOSE ADRIAN BONIFACIO
Defense Council: ATTY. NOE VILLANUEVA
Clerk of Court: MR. ALI MARI B. LABIAGA
Court Interpreter:MS. MARIE ROSE VIRGINIA O. MATIC
Court Stenographer:MS. GRACE F. DESIERTO
Crim.Case #:130379 PP. VS. BENJAMIN SAN PEDRO
For:Violation of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

PROMULGATION OF JUDGEMENT

When criminal case # 32749-R&32750-R PP. VS. BENJAMIN SAN PEDRO was called
for the promulgation of the decision they asked if the accused is present in court
after then the judge now read the content of the decision in English stating that the
accused is charged with violation of the Acts of lasciviousness.

CONTENTS OF THE DECISION:

Clerk of Mr. Alis Mari B. Labiaga called the accused Benjamin San Pedro in
front of the Presiding Judge Hon. Glenda T. Ortis in order to read the decision
regarding the filed case against Benjamin San Pedro and based on the decision the
accused was not found guilty of Acts of lasciviousness based on the ground that the
public prosecutor does not have any evidence to prove the allegations and failed to
establish proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the court rendered a decision of
acquittal to the accused regarding the case filed against him. The accused wait for
the copy of the decision to be furnished to him after the date of the reading of the
decision, so the case was now terminated.

GENERAL OBSERVATION:
During the promulgation of the decision I observed that the clerk of court
used the English language to read the decision in front of the accused in the
presence of the judge. The defense counsel of the accused was present Atty. Noe
Villanueva with the presence of the accused including the Private Prosecutor Att.
Jose Adrian Bonifacio together with the Private complainant Evelyn Garot and after
the reading of the decision their was no comment on the part of the accused
including the private complainant so the case was already terminated no civil
liabilities to settle. Regarding the prosecuting arm of this case I observed that she
had no failure to prosecute this case because of lack of a material or strong
evidence to convict the accused due to the failure of the private complainant to
show additional evidences. But with regard to the procedure I cannot see any
discrepancy or rules that were violated during the promulgation of the decision, no
modification regarding the rules stated on the procedure, even the rights of the
accused.

CONCLUSION:
I therefore conclude that regarding this case I had observed that no
discrepancy on the rules stated in the book compared to the actual court
proceeding, with regards to the presiding Judge I observed that she was attentive,

making some clarificatory question, during the trial and she has the capability to
maintain and control the proceeding of the case.

Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court
First Judicial Region
Branch 3, Baguio City
March 7, 2016

Presiding Judge: HON. LEODY M. OPOLINTO

Trial Prosecutor: PROS. ARLENE VALERIE G. CACHE/ PHILIPH RANDOLPH F.

KIAT-ING

Defense Council: ATTY. ALLAN V. ANGELES

Acting Branch Clerk of Court:ANNIE A.S. RAMOS
Court Acting Interpreter:KAREN ANN B. KAMACHO
Court Stenographer: HILDA C. TELLO, SHERLY C PATACSIL, MARILYN YUKDAUAN
Crim.Case #:134311 PP. VS. LORENZO MIRARAN (BONDED)
For: THEFT

INITIAL TRIAL

When Crim.Case #:134311 PP. VS. Lorenzo Miraran for theft was called for initial
trial. The prosecution presented Mr. Albert Velasco the witness for the taking of the
said property of the complainant for him to identify those items who was alleged to
be stolen. However the presiding judge stated that they should photograph the
items instead of bringing the items in court which compose of two boxes and the
judge also stated that for the items to be return to the lawful owner. After then the
defense insisted that the items should be personally present in court in case the
judge have any question and to be identified by the accuseds if those items they
have allegedly stole.

But the presiding judge still refuses to the statement of the defense council which
the latter the defense council agreed that the alleged stolen items should be
properly photograph one by one. Upon agreement of both the prosecution and the
defense for the photographing of the alleged stolen items the presiding judge now
set the trail dates on May 4,2 2016.

OBSERVATION

During the proceeding,I had observed in this case that both parties were present,
most of the observer are violating the rules of the court but court staff still able to
manage the ongoing proceeding until the presiding judge set the next trial dates.