Reaction Paper to a Court Visit, in partial fulfillment to the requirement in Law 118,

Legal Profession subject of Atty. Carlos Vincent Gimena

(Criminal Case)
By Micho P. Diez, LLB 1 (M11)

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, I made my first court visit at the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu City. The honorable court belongs to the 7 th Judicial
Region court of the Republic of the Philippines. During this time, the acting presiding
judge is Hon. Joy B. Redoble with Mr. Reynaldo D. Impas as the OIC-Clerk of the
Court.

These first hearings that I attended together with my classmates were about
arraignment and pre-trial conference for several cases of dangerous drugs and some
illegal possession of fire arms which counted around 32 cases being heard in the entire
morning from 8:30 A.M to 12:00 noon. Most of these cases are in violation to Sec5 Art
II of the RA9165 which prohibits the “Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.” The prohibited materials caught in possessions
of the offenders were less than five grams of shabu in sachets distributed in different
areas in Carcar City, Cebu.

According to law, the penalty for this case is imprisonment ranging from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) that
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in
such transactions.

But before we fully understand what the hearings that we attended were all
about, it was all a challenging experience of first knowing what were there in that entire
3rd floor of the building of Qimonda in Don Sergio Osmeña Avenue North Reclamation
Area, Cebu City. It was at first an adventure of searching for courts who allows student-
observants in case hearings. Most of the courts do not allow observants due to
confidentiality of cases and in some point on controversy.
 We first headed to an administration room where we seek for an approval to
join available hearings. Then we were allowed to go and ask in each court branch’s
office. We passed along the hallway were convicts squatted on the floor, waiting for
their turns to be heard in their designated courts. They were all handcuffed for security
purposes. After three court offices, we finally got the approval in Branch 14 to enter
the court and attend the hearing.

The air-conditioned court of branch 14 was filled with the accused and their
relatives. It was already crowded then and so we stayed at the back. After a few
minutes from the time we entered the court room, the judge noticed us student-
observants, acknowledge our presence and had us seated in front where we could
observe well the on-going hearings.

First lesson we learned is the courtesy to observe in the court with respect to
cellphones. A fine of 200 Php is penalized to anybody in the court whose phone rings
in the duration of the trial. Unfortunately for that person, his phone was confiscated
and would be returned after the trial upon paying the fine.

The formal hearing then continued. The council for the defense was handled by
a Public Attorney whom had presented each prosecuted persons who seek for plea
bargaining process of the law.

After the entire trial, we had the privilege of asking the nature of the trial that we
attended. Hon. Judge Redoble explained to us that based on the new framework, the
high court said an accused charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 for
possession of dangerous drugs where the quantity is less than five grams (in case of
shabu, opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine, and less than 300 grams in case of
marijuana) with a penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years in prison and a fine
ranging from P300,000 to P400,000, he or she can plea bargain to a violation of
Section 12 on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, etc. with a penalty of
six months and one day to four years in prison and a fine ranging from P10,000 to
P50,000.

Judge Redoble to each accused provided a straight penalty within the range of
six months and 1 day to one year. She added there has to be a drug dependency test
and if accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug
dependency test, he/she shall undergo treatment rehabilitation for a period of not less
than six months. Her decisions added that the treatment or rehabilitation has to be
credited the accused’s penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up
program if penalty is still unserved. If accused is found negative for drug
use/dependency, he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve
his sentence in jail minus the counselling period at rehabilitation center.”

There was a unanimous objection from the public prosecutor, public attorney
as council for the defense and the apprehending officer of the case to signify that the
accused on his own will made the admission of the crime. The objection protects the
government agency on any liability that may arise from the cause of action. The plea
bargain was initiated by Judge Redoble with a question to each of the accused, “Ikaw
(name of the accused), kamao ka sa imo gibuhat? Wa ba ka pugsa sa imohang
abogado sa niani?

In an arraignment, admitting guilt of crime in illegal drugs, accused is well

informed of his crime. Judge Redoble then provided the equivalent lesser penalty, with
hopes for the rehabilitation of the accused for a better life after serving the sentence
of imprisonment in jail.

The entire proceedings that I attended gave me that great impression on

lawyers’ significance in the administration of justice in the society. People need
lawyers, not just good lawyers but good lawyers. By giving my best in each of the law
subjects starting in my first year in law school, I hope to become one someday.