Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

First Judicial Region
THIRD BRANCH
Baguio City

Court Calendar
September 23, 2019

Presiding Judge---------------------------------------------Hon. Leody M. Opolinto

Trial Prosecutor ----------------------------------------------Pros. Arlene Valerie G. Cacho Spadaro
Pros. John Carlo E. Carantes
PAO Lawyer -------------------------------------------------Atty. Ivy Grail S. Assayco
Clerk of Court -----------------------------------------------Amando R. Dizon
Court Interpreter--------------------------------------------Karen Ann B. Camacho
Stenographers-----------------------------------------------Marilyn Yukdawan, Vilma C. Wayang
Christine Jireh Belmonte

People of the Philippines

Vs For: Grave Threats
Wilma Camdas

x---------------------------------x

Continuation of Trial

The case I observed was the continuation of trial of the Case Number 139772
“People of the Philippines versus Wilma Camdas” for Grave Threats. After the Clerk of
Court read the said case, the presiding Judge, Honorable Leody M. Opolinto, after
confirming the attendance of the witness, asked Prosecutor Arlene Valerie G. Cacho
Spadaro to present her for cross-examination.

The Prosecution then presented her witness, Sonia Evangelista to the witness
stand who took her oath with the assistance of the Court Interpreter, Karen Ann B.
Camacho, and agreed when asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

The Defense Counsel cross-examined the witness by asking series of questions.

The purpose of the questions was to get the witness to agree with the facts that
supports their case as a whole and the theory behind it. Several documents (exhibits)
were shown to the witness for her to recognize whether or not she is familiar with the
contents and that she understood the information being described.

The defense counsel presented Exhibit ‘B’ to the witness and asked whether she
was a party in which the witness denied. She then presented Exhibit ‘D1’, transfer of lot,
and asked if that is the only exhibit wherein the witness is a party. The witness said yes.
The witness testified later that she was the one who ordered the construction of the
fence around the land being disputed but she does not remember the persons
involved in the construction of the fence for it was long time ago.

During the Cross-examination, a certain official document was presented but

was objected by the other party. The judge, with careful thought, told them that they
can only object when the documents are offered as evidence.

While presenting the marked exhibits to the witness, the judge, together with the
prosecutor, defense counsel and the interpreter were all gathered around the witness
as to clarify and understand what the witness is trying to show and explain. The judge
who was eager to understand what the witness is trying to express asked questions for
everyone’s enlightenment. The witness even testified that the accused was the one
who filed administrative case to the police officers who became witnesses to the said
case. The result according to the defense council was that it gave pressure to the
police officers.

The Defense Counsel later said that the testimony of the witness is covered with
bias and with intent to harass the accused. The Defense Council concluded her
statement by saying: “Thank you, Ms. Sonia. That will be all, your honor.”

The judge, after the questioning of the defense council asked for the re- cross
examination of the witness. In here, the prosecutor asked questions related to the

In here, the prosecution asked questions to the witness in relation to one presented
during the direct examination this is to show that the witness is not reliable or that the
witness may have misstated something or even lied during the direct examination. The
prosecutor asked whether the witness is happy with the filing of the case in which the
other party objected for the irrelevancy of question. Most of the questions asked by the
prosecutor were objected for the questions asked were Irrelevant. The judge sustained.

The prosecution rests its case by saying; “No further question, your honor.” The
judge then excused the witness as he summarized the whole hearing. He also issued
subpoena to Police Officer Fernando Ansong. With the consent of both party, the
continuation of the trial was scheduled on September 30, 2019.

The witness signed a document presented to her and made her way out of the
court with her attorney by her side.

General Observation:

During the whole duration of trial, the steps in trial were strictly followed from the
taking of the oath of the witness up to the dismissal of the witness. The only difference of
this court to the court of ____________________________, the projection of the voice of the
presiding judge and their officers are clear and can be heard up to the back of the
court. ___________________ is not clear and they are the only ones who could
understand what’s being discussed for their voices are faint and unclear.