Who would have thought that one day in my life I would be in the halls

of University of Nueva Caceres (UNC), a university known for its noteworthy

reputation in producing first-rate attorneys, some of them who became

brilliant prosecutors and outstanding judges, not to mention the topnotch

examinees of the BAR? Nevertheless, here I am striving to become one of

the “luckiest” to surpass the arduous yet rewarding journey. The battle goes

on as we all hurdle towards the goal. Initially, we must accomplish all the

necessities, and one of those is the course in Practice Court. He required

everyone in his class to carry out an observation in court proceedings as part

of the requisites of the course. Every essential detail will be discussed herein.

I imagined what it would be like to witness the actual proceedings and

wondered how it would be different from what I have learned in theory and it

thrilled me. I was with my group mates and most of them also admitted that

it was their first time to observe court proceedings. It somehow alleviated my

tension to know that and I was grateful that I did not have to feel that I was

the only one who was going to witness such for the first time.

It was exhilarating when the court interpreter asked everybody to rise

as soon as the judge appeared from his chamber. The ecumenical prayer

was said and we were all seated as each of the cases was being called by

the interpreter.

It was quite an experience for a first-timer like me. I would like to point

out that the judge seemed to be very kind, considerate and treated

everybody equally. It seems that indeed judges are masters in the art of

impartiality. However, I also noticed that during the whole proceedings, I had
a hard time listening to the judge as well as the lawyers and even to the

parties in the cases because I could overhear the chattering despite the sign

inside the courtroom which says “Please Observe Silence”. I am just grateful

that I was able to listen to the important details.

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

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 observer’s

understanding of them with a court interpreter to make things easy to be

understood in lay man’s 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. 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

From what I have witnessed during the hearing, I have come to noticed

that the procedure in some courts were formal and some are not, in fact

some judges would even throw jokes at times, however, court officer still

appears concerned about protecting the rights they are representing before

the court. Since it is just my second time to visit the court, the proceedings

don’t appear fairly routinized and the calendar of cases suggests that there

are a lot of varieties of cases.

While sitting inside the sala of the judges, I noticed that most of the

judges are on their early forties. The demeanor & skills of the judges, court

personnel, and lawyers doesn’t really suggest any evidence of a smoothly

functioning courtroom workgroup. At times, there are instances that they

seem to be not coordinated or organized in their manner of handling the

course of the proceedings.

With regard to the demeanor of the plaintiff, defendant and their

witnesses, I’ve learned that you should really be very careful with the words

you put out since it could make the case more complicated and that wordplay

can be a little tricky to handle especially if you use complicated words which

could mean a lot of things instead of using short and simple words that go

straight to the point. I’ve also learned that when you’re in front of the judge,

or in a hearing for that matter, you must also be clear with the facts and your
statements. You must know why you are there and for what purpose are you

going through with the hearing. You must also remember all the necessary

information that might be related to the case for you to not misunderstand

nor create any confusion with the facts. It was a very interesting experience

to witness such proceedings.

We had to sport that dignifying stance of a law student. Our decency

and courtesy have doubled or tripled its form and showmanship. Kidding

aside, we only have to bring ourselves in there, follow certain courtroom

standard policies, and a little dress code too. So long as we don’t make too

much noise, we are off the handcuffs and the scorn looks of the detained

prisoners, as well as the prying eyes of the police officers and the terror

nudge of our professor-judges.

We were set to accomplish 50 hours of court observation. I wasn’t quite

sure then if the idea of it sounded like a treat but we were practically without

a choice. That task technically is part of the requirements of the Practice

Court subject in our fourth year. Yes, we were obliged to observe various

courtrooms in Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts. The task

sure did gave us quite an idea how a typical courtroom in the Philippines is

like, and how a typical day transpires inside the court.

A typical courtroom is indeed like a sala, that Spanish word for living

room. No wonder it is referred to as the judge’s sala. Some of which we’ve

visited are neatly clad and organized from the gavel’s spot to the end pew.

Some have lockers where files are well-kept, while there were some who you

could mistake for an archive section in a very old museum or library. There

was one in particular we’d fondly call a kindergarten or prep classroom, with

a pink bamboo bench in front, the row just next to where the lawyers are,
and some cute decorations and posters all over. Another court had a

collection or motorcycles in it, we would jestingly guess if those were for

attached properties or just a hobby of the police officers. And that microwave

near the judge’s desk, we couldn’t figure what really was that for. Yes, we

were never really that observant. Whatever the courtroom looks like, we’d

say it does speak much about the judge’s personality.

Furtively, we dare anticipate no less but to get to witness hard-core

courtroom drama. Ergo, the ones we’ve witnessed were not made for

Hollywood films. Not that we were desperate to witness one nor disappointed

though because there where days during that 3-week stint which were quite

eventful and exciting enough. I wouldn’t forget the day I sat beside an

accused in a murder case. Later did I figure that the young man, looking like

in his early twenties, beside me in that packed pew who I was stroking arms

with, was the accused himself. I was too stupid then, but maybe just

unmindful as what is characteristic of me, to notice the handcuffs on him and

that yellow-coded shirt of a detained prisoner. While the medico-legal expert

witness was testifying about how the victim could have been possibly

strangled, I could care less making faces and whispering remarks on my

classmate seated at my back. Only when she gave me that glaring warning

look did I realize that the edgy young man beside me was the accused in

that case. And so from then on, I had to learn to tame myself. I wouldn’t forget

the stare he gave me at one point. In those uneventful sessions, we would

often find ourselves giggling over some little or major bloopers --- from the

judge’s scary demeanors, the prosecutors’ and lawyers’ weird antics, to the

various faces and emotions of every witness who boldly takes the witness

stand. As was our objective, we had a take on the different courtroom

processes: arraignment, pre-trial, trial where there is presentation of

evidence or witness, promulgation of judgment, hearing on motions,

amongst many. The new process, called a Judicial Dispute Resolution,

which entails a practical way of resolving cases through mediation and

compromise, is now being highly-encouraged and practiced by the courts.

There were times as well when some of our professor-judges would take us

to their chambers after the session to enlighten us on some matters.

The court observation activity didn’t literally give us a blast but it sure

was a worthy venture for lawyer wannabe’s like us. We’d quite miss those

friendly court personnel who kindly accommodated us during those visits,

and who never tired in sparing for us those court calendars before we could

think of taking them off the bulletin boards .

Inside the Court room the place was a mess and would probably need

renovation. There were old type writers laying around the court room, stacks

of papers serving as dividers and insufficient sitting for people who are and

might be interested on the trial that could and will transpire during the day.

But even with such situation of the court it remained to be clean and

respectable. Beside you don’t see anyone complaining about anything which

gives me the impression that this kind of environment as per the court

situation would be of something considered to be common in the courts in

the Philippines. The situation of the court room is a far cry from the court

rooms you see on movies and in the television where everything was

furnished quite nicely and elegantly.

Initially court management was a bit unorganized, firstly the hearing

already started late and most of the parties in the cases lined up on that day

did also not came in not on time from which it seems to be something that
would be expected since the presiding judge was not strict in regards to

punctuality of the parties and their respective counsels. There was a roll call

done by the secretary every now and then but seems like no one was

listening and only a few individuals have approached the secretary in order

to acknowledge their presence in the court room. Before the presiding judge

entered the court room, you can see people interacting (by the parties and

counsel) with one other; there were social talks, jokes and a small amount of

laughter going around which emulates a light mood within the court room but

all of which has change when the presiding judge has entered the court room

and her presence was acknowledge by the people inside the room. The light

mood initially became quite adversarial, especially when testimonials of

witnesses and cross examination of which were conducted.

Lawyers and litigants that were within the court room during that day

were a mixed of different breed. You have those who are social and does

small talks to every person they know within the room, you also have the

entertainer type that seems to be the life of the conversation by throwing out

small talks, jokes and laughter that brings about a lighter mood in the court

room, there are also those who seems to be pretty determined during that

day and of course there are also those who seems to not really care at all

and mind their own business by pressing something on their phones. But as

I mentioned above that all of which has change soon after the presiding judge

has entered the room, everyone became a bit serious and attentive all of a

sudden which reflects professionalism on the part of the lawyer and being

respectful on the part of the litigants.

Being a lawyer is for a noble cause and that professionalism should

always be conducted in and out of the court room. Becoming a lawyer is not
only to serve as a representative of a party but more on advocating his cause

and promoting his interest by either defending his right or availing of relief

that would be of benefit to the him. Championing a person’s cause is a noble

task for it not only gives hope and a sense of security to a person but it also

gives them a new perspective in life that there are people who would try to

defend his cause and help him get through on this part of his life. This holds

true either if you are on the side of the claimant or defendant. A lawyers role

is not to juice money out of his client but to afford and give them hope that

their cause shall be defended, their rights shall be respected and due justice

shall be provided unto them. Just like the case we witness during the visit

wherein a man was requesting the court to have his marriage to his wife be

revoked. The lawyer of the man is trying to defend his client right to have a

better, peaceful and a happy life together with his children; and his cause

that his wife was not fit to stay in the marriage. And of course the lawyer of

the wife would try to defend the right of the wife for support and custody of

the children and to defend the cause of the wife that the person incapacitated

to continue with the marriage was the husband and not her. Lawyer’s are like

knights and the client as the King; and as lawyers we do as much as we can

to defend and advocate the right of the King and give the King what is duly

to him.

Professionalism as a lawyer should be practice not only in the court

room but also outside of it. As lawyers we should give due respect to

everyone not only against the opposing party and his counsel but also to the

judge, court officials and in general to everyone. The adversarial atmosphere

in the court room should not be brought outside of it. Everyone should be

able to interact and communicate with anyone without hostility. A lawyer

should not take actions of the opposing party or counsel personally during

the trial but rather think of it as the right of the opposing party afforded to him

by law. Humility should always be observed by a lawyer for he is not above

anyone else but the same with anyone else.

The thing that I learned from this court visit that I would never do in

practice if ever comes that day that I would become a lawyer is that I would

treat every person in the court room the utmost respect a person should be

afforded with. There was this lawyer by the complainant who was cross-

examining the expert witness. My impression against the lawyer upon doing

the cross examination and even during his direct examination of the

complainant on the witness stand is that he was to more of a bully rather

than an advocate of the right of the complainant. I don’t know if it was a form

of strategy on his part or if it was something common to him but his line of

questioning, gestures and reaction during his examination was disrespectful

and was somehow discrediting the person on the witness stand. I my own

opinion he was not only disrespectful to the expert witness and the opposing

party’s witness but also to his own client. His line of questioning and

approach on discrediting the expert witness has caused delay in the

proceeding of the case for a continuance was requested due to so called

unawareness of the expert witness on her own report. I think most of the

lawyers in our country lack a sense of humility especially when dealing with

people. Not sure if the status or their profession has gone to their head or

that it is just an approach they took on things but one thing is for sure that

respect and professionalism should always be observe especially by a

lawyer who is seen by society as a person of integrity and stature.

 The justice system in the Philippines is mixed legal system of civil,

common, Islamic, and customary law. The formal system of trials, appeals,

and prisons is similar to that of the United States. Civil code procedures on

family and property and the absence of jury trial were attributable to Spanish

influences, but most important statutes governing trade and commerce, labor

relations, taxation, banking and currency, and governmental operations were

of United States derivation, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth

century. Most of the laws, official notices and court decisions, including those

by the Supreme Court, are in English. Even the Constitution is published

more often in English than Tagalog. The bar exams are in English.

The basis of the legal code is primarily Spanish and Anglo-American

law. Islamic law applies among Muslims in portions of the southern

Philippines. According to the constitution, those accused of crimes have the

right to be informed of the charges against them, to be represented by

counsel, and to have a speedy and fair public trial. Defendants also enjoy

the presumption of innocence and have the right to confront witnesses,

present evidence, and appeal convictions. However, the judiciary is said to

suffer from corruption and inefficiency, which at times undermine the

provision of due process and equal justice. As a result, the Supreme Court

has undertaken a five-year program to speed up the judicial process and

crack Judicial institutions in the Philippines are regarded as weak and corrupt

and notoriously slow. Skilled lawyers can get their clients off of most charges

by bogging down the system with a flood of documents, motions and counter

motions and then files for dismissal because their client has been denied the

right to a speedy trial. Philippine law calls for compassion for people over 70.
 For poor people the justice system operates quite differently than it

does for the wealthy and elite. They are most often represented by

overworked public defenders who advise their clients to plead guilty to

hasten the process and hopefully get off with a light sentence. In many

places a system of patronage exists in which justice is defined as having

enough money to buy yourself out of any fix.down on corruption.

The Philippines has always been a highly litigious society, and the

courts often were used to carry on personal vendettas and family feuds.

There was widespread public perception that at least some judges could be

bought. Public confidence in the judicial system was dealt a particular blow

in 1988 when a special prosecutor alleged that six Supreme Court justices

had pressured him to "go easy" on their friends. The offended justices

threatened to cite the prosecutor for contempt. Aquino did not take sides in

this dispute. The net effect was to confirm many Filipinos' cynicism about the

impartiality of justice. *

Justice was endlessly delayed in the late 1980s. Court calendars were

jammed. Most lower courts lacked stenographers. A former judge reported

in 1988 that judges routinely scheduled as many as twenty hearings at the

same time in the knowledge that lawyers would show up only to ask for a

postponement. One tax case heard in 1988 had been filed 50 years before,

and a study of the tax court showed that even if the judges were to work 50

percent faster, it would take them 476 years to catch up. Even in the

spectacular case of the 1983 murder of Senator Benigno Aquino, the judicial

system did not function speedily or reliably. It took five years to convict some
middle-ranking officers, and although the verdict obliquely hinted at then-

Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver's ultimate responsibility, the court never

directly addressed that question.

The indictment of former Minister of Defense Enrile on the charge of

"rebellion with murder" shows that the courts can be independent of the

president, but also that powerful people are handled gently. Enrile was

arrested on February 27, 1990, for his alleged role in the December 1989

coup attempt in which more than 100 people died. Because Enrile was

powerful, he was given an air-conditioned suite in jail, a telephone, and a

computer, and a week later he was released on 100,000 pesos bail. In June

1990, the Supreme Court invalidated the charges against him. A further test

of the court system was expected in the 1990s when criminal and civil

charges were to be brought against Imelda Marcos. In 1991 Aquino agreed

to allow the former first lady, who could not leave New York City without the

permission of the United States Department of Justice, to return to the

Philippines to face charges of graft and corruption.

After nine years of debate, the House of Representatives finally, in

1997, approved the bicameral conference report on a new law that heavily

penalizes rape and makes it easier for government prosecutors to prosecute

rape cases. This anti-rape law reclassifies rape from “a crime against

chastity” to “a crime against a person.” Thus, if the victim is a minor and

refuses to accuse the perpetrator, only the minor’s legal guardian or the court

can file a suit. This new law also penalizes marital rape, but opens the door

for the spouse to forgive her husband, in which case the charge is voided.

The new law also redefines the nature of rape, expanding the traditional
definition of forced penile insertion in the vagina to include unwanted

insertion of the penis, or any object or instrument, in any bodily orifice of

another person. These “other acts” are now part of “sexual assault.” The law

in the Revised Penal Code also eliminates the gender bias, so that a woman

can now be charged with raping a man. Finally, the law makes it possible to

present evidence in court, in which presumption is created in favor of a rape

victim, so that any overt physical act manifesting resistance in any degree

can now be accepted as evidence of rape. Similarly, evidence that the victim

was in a situation where she/he was incapable of giving valid consent can

now be accepted as evidence of rape.

For many years, the law against rape in the Philippines was described

as a law against chastity. This meant that sexually experienced woman often

difficulty proving they were raped because they were not virgins. Defense

lawyers routinely had rape cases thrown out by arguing the victims was

promiscuous because she wasn't a virgin and therefore her chastity was not

harmed.

In the mid 1990s, rape-reform became hot topic as reformers

attempted to get the law changed so that rape victims were rape victims

regardless of whether they were virgins, chaste or no chaste or married.

Reformers also wanted to expand the definition of rape from penile

penetration to oral and anal penetration with hand and other objects.

A preliminary conference precedes a pre-trial. It is officiated by the

clerk of court. The clerk of court plays a vital role in the speedy

disposition of cases. Often times, there would be no pre-trial anymore

but the trial would commence and the judge would issue the decision for
the disposition of the case.The pre-trial conference is conducted for

the expeditious disposition of the case. What happens in the conference is

more than what meets the eye.There is now an amendment in the new

rules providing for the parties to talk with each other absent their

lawyers. Lawyers often times are stumbling blocks in the speedy

disposition of cases. In the pre-trial and preliminary conference, there is

narrowing of conflict between the parties. In furtherance of this, the judge is

sanctioned to allow the number of witnesses to be presented, limit the trial

days, etc. Remember that any evidence not presented or marked during the

pre-trial conference shall not be admitted during the trial. This is done to

make the presentation of evidence mandatory for the parties to the

case. Additional evidence shall only be allowed if there is good cause

and for furtherance of justice. Evidence is genuine and duly executed—in

relation to notarial law when the lawyer admits to the genuineness and due

execution of the documentary evidence presented. The preliminary

conference is to minimize the things to be discussed during the pre-trial

conference that would be conducted by the judge. After the pre-trial

conference, a pre-trial order shall be issued. This will serve as the bible

for the rest of the proceedings.

If the accused appears without a lawyer during arraignment, the court

appoints a “counsel de officio” from among the lawyers present in the

courtroom to assist the accused. Any lawyer the judge chooses cannot

refuse since the appointment as “counsel de officio” is for purposes of

arraignment only.
 Veteran lawyers always manifest for example, “Respectfully appearing

as counsel de officio for purposes of arraignment only.” For new bar passers

who wish to gain trial experience however, it is a good idea to take on clients

on a de officio basis not only for the arraignment but for the whole trial.

The court staff records the name of the “counsel de officio” and asks

that counsel to sign. This is to prevent the accused from later on claiming

that there was no arraignment and that therefore the court has no jurisdiction.

The information is read to the accused in a language understood by

him. The accused through counsel of course has to tell to the court

beforehand that he or she does not understand English and that the reading

should be made in the dialect he or she understands.

The reading of the information may also be waived. One reason for the

waiver is because defense lawyers do not want their clients to be subjected

to the emotional trauma of being arraigned. In one arraignment in a City

MTC, I heard an accused say that while she was being arraigned, “Parang

sinisilaban ang pwet ko!”

During the arraignment, the accused may choose not to enter any plea,

whether “guilty” or not guilty”. The judge will then direct that a plea of “not

guilty” be entered for the accused. One reason for not entering any plea is

for the accused to later on question the jurisdiction of the court over him. An

improvident plea of guilt may later on be withdrawn. If the accused cannot

post bail, he should invoke his Constitutional right to a speedy trial

immediately after he is arraigned.

 The judge may order that the marking of documentary documents be

done in a separate session with only the opposing counsels, the branch

clerk of court and the stenographer present. This saves the time of the court

especially when there are a lot of cases calendared for that day or when

there are numerous documents to be marked.

During the pre-trial conference, so as not to deface the original

documents, the opposing counsels may ask each other to stipulate that the

photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original. The branch clerk then

marks the photocopy.

Sometimes, instead of proceeding with the marking of evidences and

the making of stipulations and admissions, the court orders that the case be

brought to mediation. This again saves time and effort; if the civil aspect of

the case is mediated successfully, the criminal aspect may then be

dismissed.

Some defense lawyers who wish to expedite the pre-trial conference

simply state, for example, “The defense will only stipulate as to the

jurisdiction of this court and the identity of the accused”. The phrase “identity

of the accused” means that the person being arraigned and the person

named in the information are one and the same.

Taking into account all these encounters which so have made me

consider myself to be yet a proletarian in my undertaking, I am in awe of

the duties of the counsel as well as the prosecutors, not to mention the

scrupulous yet admirable task of the judges of the honorable court, which

are far beyond reputable and dignifying. It makes me wonder whether

certainly it would be my cup of tea after so many years of toil just as I can

see the spark in the eyes of my professors, be they judges or attorneys.