PRACTICE COURT 1

First Semester, SY. 2018-2019

COURT OBSERVATION

Procedures to be observed:

1. Arraignment
2. Pre- trial for Criminal and Civil Cases
3. Direct Examination of a witness
4. Cross examination of witness
5. Promulgation of Judgment in Criminal Case
6. Initial Hearing on Special Proceeding

Submitted By:

Rachelle Bonita

Submitted To:

Atty. Peter Cañamo

 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 Visayan so the abuser
could have understood easily. That upon knowing the charged to him he pleads guilty.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 19, CEBU CITY

Presiding Judge: Hon. Wilfredo Fiel Navarro

Public Prosecutor:
PAO Lawyer:
Branch Clerk of Court:
Branch Interpreter:
Branch Stenographer:
Hon. Aida A. Sanchez
Atty. Roh Dundee Absin
Atty. Irish Claire Cantillas
Ronalyn Fe Pagusara
Emily Mae Ferrer

Case No. 2: R-CEB-16-06653-CR

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.
 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: 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 this is the last presentation of a 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.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION
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

Counsel for the Petitioner: Atty. Don Revalle

Petitioner: Salvador Placencia Fontanoza Jr.

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 trail 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 hear
 The following case, People vs. Joey Lacaya y Badjao, was also for arraignment.
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-69798-803, this was a case for six counts of rape.
Accused was advised by the honorable court to plead guilty in order to be able to apply
for probation. Meanwhile, the offended party was not present during that time and the
arraignment was requested by counsel to be reset to September 8, 2011.

Criminal Case No. 05-60776, People vs. Joe Octavio, for 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 Php (as a result of the doubled amount required by the judge).
The next case, People vs. Lerma Martelino, was also for promulgation of sentence.
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 05-61273, this is a case for estafa. Just like the previous
case, the interpreter promulgated the sentence with a summary of the case until the
decision was read to the accused, who was found guilty and sentenced to an
indeterminate imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to eight
(8) years and twenty (20) days. Accused was also asked by the court to return the unsold
SM gift checks or the equivalent value. Thereafter, accused decided to appeal the case
and apply for bail thus her counsel informed the court with which the judge required
additional bail and doubled the amount from 10,000 Php to 20,000 Php.
The third case was for arraignment. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-69524,
People vs. Le Jayme Jalbuna was a case for violation of Sec. 261 (q) of the Omnibus
Election Code (B.P. 881) as implemented by Comelec Resolution No. 8737. Counsel for the
accused asked to reset the hearing due to reason that the petition for review from the
Secretary of Justice was asked as regards the issue on whether the court has jurisdiction
to hear the case. The defendant’s contention was that the court lacks jurisdiction and
hereby moves to quash the information in case the Secretary of Justice declares the court
as having no jurisdiction to try such case. The judge then decided to reset the case for the
last time and reminded both parties that generally the decision of the Secretary of Justice
awaits until sixty (60) days and thereafter they may either proceed with the case, or
otherwise, depending upon said decisin

Court Observation # 3
Court: Municipal Trial Court of Cainta
Presided by: Judge Cruz
Case: Collection of sum of money
Observation