1 | Page

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
th
11 JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 13
TAGUM CITY
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Criminal Case No. _______________

FOR: Violation of RA 9165

NAME OF DEFENDANT,
Defendants.
x---------------------x

COURT OBSERVATION REPORT

for PRACTICE COURT 1
Regional Trial Courts has exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except
those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by
the latter. RTC Criminal Courts typically try cases of serious crimes like
murder and robbery, as opposed to petty crimes, which reduce the burden of
court cases.
It was Wednesday; I opted to have my observation in the sala of Judge
Rowena Adlawan who serves as acting presiding judge of RTC Branch 13.
There were policemen and men seated at the bench outside the courtroom. I
asked a man standing at the door if I could make a court observation, and he
introduced himself to be the sheriff and told me I can freely observed the
ongoing hearing but make sure to turn off my cell phone so as not to distract
the ongoing proceedings.
I entered the room and saw people inside with sullen and stern faces. The
atmosphere inside the courtroom setting was engulfed with serious air. The
case in progress that time was People vs. Capuno, a drug related case. In the
witness stand is a police officer who introduced himself to be Johnny
Manatad, he is a Rifle Man Investigator. The state prosecutor was doing his
direct examination. The accused was named as Abu Bakr Klaw who was
seated in a nearby bench from where I am sitting. It was a case of a buy bust
operation. That on or about the 4th day of November 2013 at 6:40 in the
evening, nearby police station, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused was endorsed to him.
The questions that were asked posed a tainted doubt on the part of the
police officer being interrogated at the time. There seems to be
discrepancies with the way he answered the questions propounded that irked
the ears of the judge. The witness told before the court that he had not been
part of the prior planning of the operation. There were just documents that

2 | Page

he prepared necessary to carry out the operation. He further added that the
reason that he was not included is in order that pertinent and sensitive
information will not be divulged for security purposes. The state prosecutor
let the witness identified a document which is called as Spot Report
purportedly made by him. Accordingly, the word used in the report should
have been sold and delivered and not confiscated from the accused under
his control and possession.
Judge Adlwan gave the witness a chance to rectify the discrepancies as
maybe the report he wrote was not the one he intends to mean but when
asked the witness to define the meaning of confiscated, the meaning he
gave is the same with the one reflected on his report and the judge loudly
said It seems from the wording you gave, it is not the accused who is the
culprit. She added, I believe you are a four year graduate and you are an
intelligent man but you have admitted in this court your stupidity. The court
cannot give other interpretation except the ones you gave us loud and
clear. The interrogation proceeded with the prosecutor asking him to
identify some pictures and name the people in there. The witness then was
asked to identify the accused from the audience and was able to point him
with certainty.

The cross examination was set to September 3, 2014, same venue and time.
The presiding judge ordered for Sub Poena Duces Tecum and Ad
Testificandum on some pertinent material witness for testimony and object
evidence to be brought in the court such as the cell phone and the play
money.
I found the trial proceedings to be quite simple to understand, possibly
attributable to the fact that it was a drug related case, and hence issues had
to be dealt with in such a fashion so as to sufficiently facilitate the observers
understanding of them with a court interpreter to make things easy to be
understood in lay mans term. To my mind also, offenders in Philippine
jurisdiction seems to be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
In conclusion, the Regional Trial Court is evidently not only historically but
also a contemporarily important court, which I found to be adequately
accessible for members of the general public. The people whom I
encountered that worked in the building were approachable and very
forthcoming with information. The actual viewing facilities themselves were
not particularly comfortable; however, I do not suppose that they are
designed for their comfort, but rather for their functionality. I got the feel of
how to be a lawyer. It appears to be quite a tough job meant for strong and
intelligent
beings.
Following this initial visit to the Regional Trial Court I would almost certainly
feel confident in either returning one day or when visiting other courts to
view proceedings.

Prepared by:

3 | Page

Jenifer M. Paglinawan