I.

Preliminaries
a.) Case Title: Arraignment & Pre-trial Conference; Motion for
Reconsideration for Qualified Theft
b.) Presiding judge: Hon. Ma. Lynna Adviento
c.) Counsels/lawyers (both parties): Atty. Vincent S. Isles (accused); ACP
Rhodna Alcala-Bacatan (state)
d.) Litigants or Parties Concerned: PP vs. Dee Mark M. Anor (accused)

II. Facts/ Nature of the case

The accused was charged with theft.
The accused was assigned to distribute the payroll to the employees.
Abaca Group, Inc. uses an internet-based banking program to do the said

process.
The only money left in the account amounted to Php 4843.69, and the
other supposed amount of money was found in the Metrobank account of

the accused.
Accused pleaded not guilty.

III. Observation of the court visit

While I was observing the arraignment, I was expecting more formality
from the presiding judge, the stenographic reporter, and the interpreter with the
reading of the case to the criminal. What I witnessed was more casual, more of
the giddy talks; its a lot less than what I should be expecting.
Though that was just a part of the affair, the criminal was asked by the
presiding judge a number of times (3, if I remembered it correctly) if he is guilty or
not about the crime that was told to be committed by him.
As far as I have witnessed, I also noticed the presence of the interpreter
and how important his/her role is in the court hearing, especially when the client/s
are not articulate, mainly because the client/s cannot understand, or because

fear makes them not understandable. A time when Dee Mark (accused) was
confused about a term told by the presiding judge, the interpreter explained it in a
way the accused could comprehend easily.
The stenographic reporter, as I have seen, kept all of the paperwork and
documents about the case. It took her long to find the details of the case in her
pile of papers, though.
What I liked about most is how the presiding judge used laptop to view
about the case--- she was typing most of the things that Atty. Isles were stating,
and at the same time how every idea of the hearing comes together.

IV. Conclusion
Every person that makes up the court has specific roles to do, and each
role contributes to the flow and the totality of the case. Even the accused should
have a cooperative role--- unconsciously or not--- when it comes to the ideas of
the case. Moreover, technological advancement paved way to aid the court staff
in recording details preceding, during, and after the court hearing.

V. Recommendation
Formality-wise, the court staff could have minimized chitchats not related
to the case, and exclude their personal life, as well, especially in this kind of
affair. Additionally, the stenographic reporter could have prepared the data about
the case beforehand instead of scanning through the documents during court
hearing--- it destroys the momentum of the case, and it lengthens the time
duration of the court hearing.