Court Visit

Regional Trial Court 7th Judicial Region Branch 56

Date: March 23, 2016
Location: City of Mandaue
Presiding Judge: Hon. Teresita Abarquez-Galamida
Clerk of Court: Atty. Pete Uliver Verdida
Stenographer: Mrs. Julita C. Mahusay
Note: I have decided to avoid a near meaningless, flowery-worded narrative for my
court visit report so instead, I encoded my notes during the court session. I have
details on the cases however, I was unable to obtain vital information (case number,
etc.) on several cases because the list was used during the session and I was unable
to retrieve them. I have included a few photos on the last page.
Observations: The presiding judge seemed quite mellow and she gave warm
remarks on some novel ideas or events. She presented herself with good composure
and a stern, uncompromising stance or footing.
Events
8:27 a.m.

Marriage (Civil)

The husband was working in Saudi Arabia and was soon to

leave.
They were living together for about 10 years.
The judge re-stated of the nature of Civil Marriage.
There was a discourse on the importance of marriage.
A last question was asked by the judge if they are sure if they

can comply with the obligation of marriage.

Civil Marriage is a legal right and protected by the state;

preservation of marriage.
There was a discourse on annulment.

It seemed like a cross-examination.

The judge compared the civil marriage to the religious marriage.

There was also an oath and return of marriage vows or pledges.

confirmation of marriage by the judge

Some concluding statements were then given.

#2 DU-16151

Pp v. Ciriaco Silvano Salarza

For: Sec. 5 of RA 9165
Prosecutor: N. Sistoso for the state
Atty. G. Bantique for the accused

The Chief Inspector came for the cross examination.

An oath was taken before the session.
The police officer was assigned in Police Station in Consolacion

last January 27.

They were approved to conduct a by-bust operation against the

accused.
The police officer explained that there was coordination with

PDEA for the operation.

There was a discourse on the events that transpired in the
operation.

#3 DU-19441 & 19444 Pp v. Angelito Duria Hayag

For: Sec. 5 & 11 of RA 9165
Prosecutor: N. Sistoso for the state
Atty. G. Bantique for the accused

Pledges or an oath was given before that session.

A certain senior police officer (SPO4) Pepito made a testimony.
Cross examination of the officer.
Location: Liloan Police Station
By-bust Operation against the suspected drug pushers.
There was a discourse on the events that transpired in the

operation.
By-bust money: 5 pcs. 50 peso bills
Observation: it seems that by-bust money are always marked or
signed at the lower right corner of the bill by an authorized

officer.
2 suspects were involved, named Ortaga and a certain Baki
Judge gave some advice on the fact that the Baki suspect
escaped and that the police should shed some pounds to avoid

this.
Subpoena to the SPO4

Inventory & Cash Proceeds

#6 DU-20010

Pp v. Wilma Riberal-Repillo, et al.

22625-26

For: Sec. 5 of RA 9165

Prosecutor: N. Sistoso for the state
Atty. Ferdie Espiridion Riveral for the accused

This was a joint trial.

Another cross examination took place.
It was a continuation of direct on PO3 Roehi, Patalinghug.

#8

The accused failed to pay of P8k/month

A chance was given to make payments on or before June 29

A police officer made a testimony.

A cross examination took place.
Discourse and (Q & A) on events on the by-bust operation.
Location: Sitio Greenhills, Liloan, Cebu
Examination on the evidence:
-description on the attire of the suspects
-Drug evidence: white crystallic substance; probably METH or

#9

shabu
The judge said, when the accused is called, he should be

brought (or be) inside

Accused name: Arturo
Subpoena to (SP03) police officer.

#21

There was a mention of a JDR or a similar acronym and a

mention of The Supreme Court.

An involved party asked for php 100,000 & a public apology from

the accused.
The judge gave a discourse on amicable settlements.
Judge commented the php 1M may not be permitted by the
court.

The hearing cannot proceed because only the plaintiff has

appeared; to be rescheduled on May 18 at 10:30 a.m.

#11

Urgent omnibus motion filled by the accused to counsel.

There was confusion in case file number 23450 vs 23405.
The case number should have been both as mentioned.
They need to issue subpoena (prosecutor).

(#17; #18; #19; #20;)

Majority of these trials were moved due to several reasons such

as missing medical records/results, psychology records/results,
no prosecutors available, no appearance of certain people or
involved parties.

Photos