University of Southern Philippines Foundation

College of Law
Salinas Drive, Lahug Campus
Cebu CIty

PRACTICE COURT I
Court Observation

Submitted by:

Phil Christian Montefalcon

Submitted to:

Atty. Peter Canamo

September 2, 2019
1. ARRAIGNMENT
R-CEB-17-04850-CR PEOPLE vs EMILIO CORDINERA
In this proceeding that the accused was read upon the court of his offense. The
Judge also asked the accused as to whether it has a counsel or not, otherwise the
state/court would provide one for the accused. Fortunately, the accused had a counsel.
After, both counsels of the other sides manifested their appearances. The accused was
later on called in front and the judge asked the accused what is his plea. After, the counsel
of the prosecution moved to set a date for the trial.

On this day, the court was crowded. Many cases were scheduled under this branch
of court and mostly are drug related cases like illegal possession and use of dangerous
drugs.

2. PRE-TRIAL
a. CRIMINAL CASE
R-CEB-19-06412-CR PEOPLE vs FEBE ISRAEL NATINGA
The Judge asked the prosecution side if they have stipulations for admission of
facts. The prosecution then proceeded to ask the defense side if they admit to the
identity of the accused as the same person charged in the information filed. The
defense side replied in affirmative and admitted that it was the same person charged
in the information. The Judge asked the defense counsel if they have stipulations for
admissions, which they replied negatively. The Judge then asked for evidences to be
marked. Parties requested that the evidences they have will be marked during trial.
The Judge asked as to the number of witnesses to be presented. After the presentation
of witnesses, the Judge then terminated the pre-trial proceedings and the prosecution
then moved for the trial of the case. The Judge then set the dates for the trial.

I observed that the cases’ schedules for trial are seemed too late, like after three
or four months. It just shows that although the court can have many alternatives to
facilitate a speedy and easy way to resolve the case, we cannot deny the fact that there
are hundreds of cases being tried in the courts. That is the reason why the trial of the
cases took too long to be resolved.

b. CIVIL CASE
R-CEB-17-06187-CV DIONISO A CANETE vs RODERICK VILLACARLOS
Normally, in a pre-trial proceeding, before it can be proceeded, parties must first
avail a judicial dispute resolution. If parties are not settled during the judicial dispute
resolution, the judge will ask the parties during pre-trial proceedings if they are
amenable to an amicable settlement. The judge then would proceed to stating the
summary of admitted facts and stipulation for admission of facts, the plaintiff would
then ask the defense of their stipulated facts. The judge would then mandate the
 parties to resolve the issues. After which they would proceed to marking of the exhibits,
and then the calling out of witnesses. However, this case has not reached the pre-trial
stage for the reason that there was no judicial dispute resolution that was obtained by
the parties.

3. DIRECT-EXAMINATION
a. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MEANS OF A JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
CEB-38294 SAN NARCISO BUILDERS CORPORATION vs ROBERT C MONTENEGRO
The Clerk of Court called the case for presentation of witness for direct
examination. The witness for the plaintiff was then called sworn by the court
interpreter to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The witness’s
personal circumstances were then asked by the interpreter and the witness responded
and was ready for testimony.

The plaintiff’s counsel then offered the judicial affidavit executed by the witness
and asked the opposing party of any objections to use the affidavit as the testimony of
the witness. The opposing counsel then responded in negative. The witness was the
asked by the counsel if what is his name and if he remembered that he executed a
judicial affidavit in relation to the case he was called to testify. The counsel then
showed the affidavit to the witness and he responded “Yes”. The counsel pointed the
name and signature appearing at the last page of the affidavit if that was the witness’s
name and signature, the witness responded “Yes”. The counsel then asked the witness
if he affirm and confirm the truthfulness and veracity of the contents of the judicial
affidavit, the witness answered in affirmative.
The plaintiff’s counsel then let the witness identify the annexes attached to the
judicial affidavit and asked the court to mark the annexes as their exhibits. The counsel
asked the court to use and admit the judicial affidavit as direct testimony of the
witness. The court granted the admission of the judicial affidavit. The judge asked the
counsel if he has more questions to the witness. He responded in negative then said
that the witness is ready for cross-examination and rest his case.
b. CROSS-EXAMINATION
R-CEB-19-01579- CR PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JONATHAN ENTICE VILLAHERMOSA
During Cross-examination the prosecution lawyer throw numerous questions to
the accused. To my surprise there were some questions that were leading but the
lawyer of the accused did not object for some reason. It also caught my attention that
every statement made by the lawyer in English was translated to Cebuano language.
The interpreter committed some mistakes on the interpretations of the questions of
the counsels, so the judge was the one interpreting it to the accused. The judge also
was not that strict during the cross-examination. In fact, the judge aided the prosecutor
in formulating his questions for the accused to understand better. The prosecution
counsel asked to questions which are not related to the case for the sake of asking
 questions for the accused. After the cross-examination ended, the judge asked the
other party’s counsel if he would conduct a re-direct examination which he answered
in negative.

To my expectation as a student of law, I thought that if you are in the court, you
must be well versed and prepared in the trial. But as I observed, there are counsels
for either the accused or even for the State who come to court not prepared nor cam
formulate questions especially in conducting testimonial examination of the witness.

4. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
CBU-104399 PP vs ROLDAN CABALLERO RACAL
During the promulgation of judgment, the court interpreter first, called upon the
prosecutor and the public attorney for their appearances to be manifested. In
promulgation of judgment, I observed that it was during this time that the accused is to
be sentenced of his punishment and whether or not the accused would appeal if the
judge would rule against him.

In this case, the judge ruled against the accused and sentenced him with a penalty
of 8 years and 1 day to 10 years of imprisonment. After the decisions was made, the
respective counsels of both parties, the accused and the police officer signed the
decision. The accused was asked by its counsel if he wanted to make an appeal, which
the accused declined.