UNIVERSITY OF NUEVA CACERES

COLLEGE OF LAW
SECOND SEMESTER, ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019

PRACTICE COURT II

Submitted to:

JUDGE PABLO C. FORMARAN III

Submitted by:

ABIGAIL T. REYES
4th YEAR BLOCK A

15 March 2019
 INTRODUCTION

Why do you want to be a lawyer? Is it the prestige and the glamour that
most people associate to being a lawyer that made you decide to take up
law? Was it your dream, or a dream that you wanted to fulfill for someone
else?

These are but few of the many of questions our professor asked of
us on the first day of class in my Intro to Law subject. When it was my
turn to recite, my answer came easy, “Because it is MY DREAM” I said. A
dream I have cherished since childhood, back in time when the only
concept of a lawyer I have is the attaché case-carrying, well- dressed
person whose voice resonates with “Objection, your Honor” and defends
the oppressed.

After six years of constant battles between the demands of work

and school, of wanting to sleep and wanting to digest cases as well, of
nerve-wracking and pride shattering recitations, of the humbling
examination results, I can still say with great conviction that becoming a
lawyer is a dream I intend to accomplish.

Regular exposure to lawyers, judges and court personnel while in

action during practicum and court observations has given life to an
otherwise abstract understanding of the laws and rules of procedure.
Practicum subjects and court observations has given me a glimpse of
what is reality to judges, court personnel, lawyers and litigants when they
are in court.

A lawyer for me now is no longer just an icon of elegance or the

hero that saves the day. A lawyer for me is a symbol of perseverance,
resiliency, honor and dedication. A person whose life’s work is to serve
the ends of justice so that no person is deprived of his life, liberty and
property without due process of law. A lawyer who remains true to his
promise to uphold the law despite the many reasons for its selective
application.
 COURT OBSERVATIONS / INSIGHTS

A good demeanor while inside the courtroom is essential for

making a good impression. This is especially true in the courtroom where
there are many stated and unstated rules of conduct for litigants,
attorneys and other attendees.

It is worth mentioning that legal professionals have been taught

how to behave in and out of court given that among the subjects in law
school are the Code of Ethics and procedures until they are formally
trained during actual practice. Some have remained firm with their oath
as lawyers, while some have soon forgotten what they have promised to
the point of forgetting the basics of good behavior.

Respect to the court must always be upheld, and this can be

manifested through the respect being accorded to the Judge. This is
because the Judge not only represents the ultimate authority in the court,
but also the law. Thus, at the start of the court proceedings, people stood
up as the Judge entered the courtroom, and do not sit down until the
Judge took his/her seat. People in the courtroom also addressed the
Judge as “Your Honor”. Before anything can ever be spoken, before any
evidence can be offered, before any witness is presented, and even before
a counsel leave the courtroom, they always secure the permission of the
Judge.

The Judge always have the last say. While some Judges were nice
and good-humored, some were strict and stern. One Judge wittily warned
a witness to just finish her snacks outside the courtroom, while another
Judge stringently reprimanded some people in the audience for
chattering.

Lawyers were courteous and polite as they speak with the Judge.
They never attempted to rudely argue with the Judge. Arguing with their
co-lawyers though is another matter. They can be arguing in loud voices
while trying to emphasize their points or trying to startle their
adversaries, but never to the point of taking things personally against
each other. They argued on points and issues, but never attacked their
co-lawyers below the belt. What is amazing is that after their heated
arguments, they laughed at it. This is actually not new in court settings
especially because most of the lawyers appearing as prosecutors, lawyers
of the Public Attorney’s Office, and even those private practitioners, were
comrades and even belong to the same groups or associations. But
notwithstanding this fact, the lawyers maintain their independence and
litigate the case to the best of interest of their respective clients, personal
matters set aside.
 The court employees such as the court stenographers and court
interpreters were quite amazing. It is indeed a skill for court
stenographers to jot down every word being uttered by the Judge, the
counsels and the witnesses. Some court stenographers were so focused
that they would not speak. Some would talk with the court interpreter,
the witness and the counsels for the purpose of clarifying words. While
court stenographers were so alert in transcribing every word, the court
interpreters were also so alert in looking for the perfect words to
translate what is being said, particularly of the witnesses, who found it
rather difficult to state their testimonies in the English language. Court
interpreters played a vital role in the conduct of court proceedings. They
served as guides of the proceedings, arranging the cases, the litigants, the
counsels and the witnesses, announcing the arrival and departure of the
Judge and the cases for the day, scheduling the next proceedings,
translating the testimonies of the witnesses in English language, making
sure that all the testimonies of the witnesses and all the discussions were
put on record by the court stenographers even up to the point of stopping
right then and there the examining counsel from further asking questions
until the statements just uttered were put on record first, voicing the
Exhibits presented by the parties, taking oaths of the witnesses, taking
arraignments of the accused, and all others. Court interpreters, indeed,
were the voice in the courtroom. As such, they remained focus on every
detail of the court proceedings, and that’s a skill learned through practice.

It has always been that the accused remained quiet throughout the
entire court proceedings. I have yet to see an accused who would go
berserk and attack the witness or victim as what is shown in the movies.
One of the reasons might be that they were afraid of what lies ahead of
them. Or it could be that they refrain from misbehaving for fear of having
the case decided against their favor.

When doing court observations, I would usually stand at the back

or sit on the last benches and observe the accused from where I was until
the arrival of the judge is announced. Looking at their faces and watching
their interactions with family members always brings me back to the
principle of presumption of innocence. As a human person with my own
prejudices, my initial reaction is, “they must be guilty, that’s why they’re
here” then the lawyer-in-waiting in me will also think “that remains to be
proven”. Which leads me and brings me back to how difficult the job of a
judge must be. I can only imagine the burden of responsibility that rests
on their shoulders. For how do you always keep the balance when on one
end, what is at stake is the life and liberty of a person who could be
somebody else’s precious mother, father, son or daughter and on the
other end your sacred duty to render judgment as the law dictates? (This
must be the reason why they are so attentive, ha!)
 Witnesses bring the drama to the courtroom during the trial. Some
witnesses were funny, some were hesitant, some were nervous, some
were afraid, some were relaxed, but most of them were observed to utter
words in a soft voice, maybe afraid of committing a mistake. They spoke
facts based on their personal knowledge, although as observed, most of
the witnesses were prepared to some extent before they were presented
in court. Of course, they must have been briefed before the examination
in order to extract better the information they had and prepare their
statements in a more relaxed atmosphere once they were already
confronted by the opposing counsel. Sometimes however their
preparations are not enough that the opposing counsel gets the better of
them.

The audience, on the other hand, were of different types. Some

behaved properly, some were chattering, some were constantly
supporting the relative-accused, some were critiquing, and some just
wanted to leave the courtroom at any time. Overall, they conduct
themselves properly and accord the court the due respect entitled to it.
 Observation: Per Trial Day Basis

Municipal Trial Court:

February 4, 2019:
MCTC Branch 3

The most notable case scheduled on this day is the case of Patrick
Obias vs. Rodrigo Rodriguez, Jr which is a civil case of Forcible Entry with
Damages. Cross -examination of Marianito Abella and Miguel Atole.

From what I have gathered, it appears that the lot under litigation
was part of a bigger lot measuring 201,460 square meters. The lot under
litigation measuring 6,566 square meters was sold by the matriarch or
the Family Abella while the latter was still living, sometime in the year
2000, to the father of the petitioner. Marianito Abella, a co-heir sold the
land subject of the case to Rodrigo Rodriguez in January 2016 by virtue
of a Special Power of Attorney executed by his co-owner/siblings,
claiming that the sale of their mother by the lot is without their authority.

The lawyer for the petitioner was able to challenge the credibility
of witness Miguel Atole who was the BARC Chair of Brgy. Cararayan Naga
City, during the time of the sale by showing that said BARC chair acted as
broker/ agent between Rodriguez and Abella despite that fact that such
function is not included in his duties as BARC Chair.

February 11, 2019

MCTC Branch 1

Most notable of the cases, heared on this day is the case for false
testimony in civil cases penalized under Article 182 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Opposing counsel asked the help of the court to order the counsel
of petitioner to comply with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Court granted
said counsel’s motion and warned the counsel of petitioner to submit the
judicial affidavit within three (3) days or he will be precluded from
submitting said affidavits, considering it waived.

On cross examination of the available witness who has a JA, witness

denied one of the answers in the JA, stating that he did not say it and the
lawyer did not explain it when he was asked to sign the judicial affidavit.
The lawyer doing the cross appear very aggressive.
February 12, 2019
MCTC Branch 3

Criminal Case 131903 (Theft)

Accused was charged for shop-lifting as Watsons in SM City Naga.

According to the information, what was shoplifted did not even exceed
₱800.00. What struck me was the fact that the accused was a pretty
young lady, who supposedly took baby powder along with some other
cosmetic products that’s why she was charged for theft. She pleaded not
guilty and she’s out on bail.

Criminal Case 130948 (Grave Threats)

The judge warned the private complainant that continued absence

of the prosecutor will result to the dismissal of the case to respect the
right of the accused to the speedy disposition of the case. It appears that
the prosecutor has failed to appear several times for the case without due
explanation.

Criminal Cases 131662 & 131664 (Perjury)

These cases are related and an offshoot of a criminal case heard in

another sala. The defense lawyer questioned the “sworn and subscribed”
portion of the Judicial Affidavit of the JA of the witness due to conflict of
interest. It was overruled by the judge saying that she sees no conflict
interest in that. Lawyers of both parties appear to be in a “heated debate”.

Criminal Case 131033

(Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide)

Private prosecutor motioned to conduct the examination of the

child witness inside the judge’s chambers.

February 19, 2019

MCTC Branch 3

Among the case for trial was malicious mischief. It was defined as
the willful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage
due to hate, revenge or other evil motive. To successfully make a person
liable for malicious mischief, the following elements must be proved: 1)
that the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;
2) that such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction; 3) that the act of damaging another’s property be committed
merely for the sake of damaging it.
Regional Trial Cour

December 12, 2018

RTC Branch 23

Judge Ferrer talked about the seminar they attended on continuous

trial. According to him, there is very low compliance on trial days (length
time trial is being held) but strong compliance on decision days. This
means that if it were only up to judges, cases would be terminated faster.
He likewise discussed the recent development on RA 9165 which now
allows plea-bargaining based on Section 12. He said that these
developments might very well affect the on-going trials since the accused
may want to avail of the plea-bargaining with the consent of course of the
public prosecutor involved.

January 18, 2019 (AM)

RTC Branch 61

Criminal Cases RTC 2018-0852 (Homicide)/ RTC 2018-0889 (Rape)

Both accused in above cases have no lawyers of record. The Judge

assigned as counsel de officio Atty. Aina General and Atty. Jopito Agualada
after asking the two accused if they agree with the assignment of a
counsel de officio. The assigning of the counsel de officio was made in
order to go ahead with the arraignment of the accused in their respective
cases.

Accused in the homicide case was advised to get the services of a

lawyer after pleading not guilty to case charged.

The observers in the trial court were suppressing their laughter

when both the interpreter and the counsel de officio found it difficult to
translate the information for Rape in Filipino. When the accused was
asked if he was able to understand the accusations against him as
translated, he said no. A plea of not guilty was later made after due
explanation.

Criminal Cases RTC 2018-0445

Judge asked for the result of the Alternative Dispute Resolution

conducted. According to the counsel present, the value of the amount
taken has already been partially paid and the balance is subject to an
installment agreement. Counsel asked for the deferment of the case until
the return of the counsel who was on calamity leave after the typhoon
that hit the Rinconada area.
Criminal Case RTC 2018-0601 (Violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

Bonded accused through counsel and the complainant through

private prosecutor appeared with manifestation that there is an on-going
communication with the Office of the Ombudsman for the referral of the
case to the Sandiganbayan. Deferment was granted in consideration of
the possible transfer.

Criminal Case RTC 2018-0560/ RTC 2018-0561

(Violation of Sections 5; 11 of RA 9165 // Same Accused)

Prosecutor does not agree with the proposal of the defense in the
Plea Bargain. The Court will act on the Plea Bargain and re-set the pre-
trial on a later date. The Naga City District Jail was reminded to bring the
accused to Pamukid, San Francisco for drug dependency exam.

Criminal Case RTC 2018-0537 / 0538 / 0539/ 0540

(Violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165)

All accused in the above drug cases were siblings who were
apprehended in a drug raid. Counsels marked their respective pieces of
evidence which took a while because there were many items recovered
from the scene. Defense counsel made a general manifestation relative
to the reservation of evidence. The judge denied and said that based on
the revised rules, such general manifestation is not allowed. Parties soon
after made proposal of stipulations. Brothers De Vela (Section 11) were
ordered to consult with their counsel for possible plea bargaining.

Criminal Case RTC 2018-0483 ( Attempted Murder)

Private complainant was demanding ₱200,000 as damages in order

to allow the accused to plead to a lesser offense. Accused said he cannot
afford the amount ask. Lawyer for the accused asked for deferment as
she intends to move for the quashal of the information on the grounds of
invalidity of arrest and search/ lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. According to the counsel the offer of compromise was made not
as an admission of guilt but merely to avoid undue stress.
January 18, 2019 (PM)
RTC Branch 27

Criminal Cases (numerous/ same accused / syndicated estafa)

Our batch of observers were originally intending to attend the

hearing of this case in the morning of January 18, 2019 but due to the fact
that the sala can hardly accommodate all the accused and their jailers, we
were asked to move out and thus went to a different branch. After the
trial in Branch 61, we learned that Branch 27 will continue hearing the
case we originally planned to observe so we came back and luckily there
were lesser people in the sala compared to the morning session.

February 7, 2019
RTC Branch 24

While nothing very significant happened on this trial date, the cases
brought to mind the recent developments in Criminal Law as enunciated
in the Ivler case discussed by Judge Formaran in Criminal Law Review. In
said case, it was enunciated that all result of one negligent act must be
included in the information filed because filing separate cases will cause
to operate the right of the accused against double jeopardy.

February 14, 2019

RTC Branch 24

Majority of the cases heard on this date are drug cases. Witnesses
for the prosecution were being crossed-examined. They were asked on
details surrounding the pre-buy bust, actual buy-bust and after buy-bust
procedures. Matters relating to planning, coordination and actual buy
bust positioning as well as report preparation were the subject of the
cross examination.

February 20, 2019

RTC Branch 24

Most notable cases on this date are the three counts of Estafa
against the spouses Joel and Cynthia Agnabo. Catherine Rason, the
private complainant was represented by her sister. It appears that
private complainant gave her sister a special power of attorney to
represent her as she is the United States. Also, the 14 checks issued by
the spouses were all entrusted to her since the sister already left for the
States. Eleven of the fourteen checks with the amount of ₱25,000
represent monthly interest, two checks amounting to ₱262,500 which
represent the amount of investment of ₱500,000 and the last month of
interest. The remaining last check was encashed by Mrs. Cynthia Agnabo
in their office at Pili. The witness relayed how she has in her possession
the checks, her interactions with the accused and how they came about
with the information that the matter with the Agnabo’s investment fell
through. A visit in the office of the Agnabo’s in Pili showed that the office
was already closed but there was a notification of a meeting where all
investors were to meet with the Agnabos. In said meeting, Mr. Agnabo
was not around due to poor health. In said meeting it was discussed that
properties of the Agnabos will be auctioned to return the investment of
the Agnabos. When witness later on went to SM-BDO, she was told that
the account was already closed and the checks were stamped
accordingly. Another investor Mr. Lapid, invited her to join in filing the
case against the Spouses Agnabo. Like her sister, Mr and Mrs. Lapid also
invested with the spouses Agnabo. Mr. Lapid and and Ms. Catherine
Rason were batchmates in high school. SPA was exhibited and shown to
the witness for identification.

On cross-examination, the counsel for the defense made inquiries

as to the personal knowledge of the witness prior the meeting with
Cynthia and Joel when she encashed the check in Pili. Witness denied
knowing the two accused prior to said encashment. Witness was
apparently the last witness for the prosecution.
 Legal Assistance:

People vs. Edwin Blanco y Barnedo

Crim Case # 9680,
For Malicious Mischief
Municipal Circuit Trial Court – Libmanan-Cabusao

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused Edwin Blanco was charged with malicious mischief after

allegedly hacking the four tires of a Toyota Hi-Ace Van bearing plate No.
VL5342 owned by Elsa Pelagio, sister of private complainant and driver
of said Toyota Hi-Ace Van. Elsa Pelagio authorized Carlo Torio through
as Special Power of Attorney to institute the case in her behalf.

Version of the Complainant:

Complainant alleges that the tires of the Toyota Hi-Ace was hacked
by accused Edwin Blanco due to the latter’s frustration when he failed to
avenge himself after being hit by private complainant while defending
himself against accused.

Version of the Accused:

Accused denies all allegations claiming that what the complainant

said and his witness (his aunt) were all lies as they have a previous
misunderstanding. He claims that complainant is a known trouble-maker
in their barangay and the aunt’s testimony were given to cover up the acts
of the nephew.

Participation:

Counsel for the accused Atty. Mary Grace L. Villar asked me to

research on a possible defense for the case and to prepare a proposal for
a compromise agreement for the settlement of the civil liability.
My research yielded the following:

Malicious mischief is defined as the willful damaging of another’s

property for the sake of causing damage due to hate, revenge or other evil
motive. To successfully make a person liable for malicious mischief, the
following elements must be proved: 1) that the offender deliberately
caused damage to the property of another; 2) that such act does not
constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; 3) that the act of
damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of
damaging it (Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (15th Ed.),
page 837).

The kinds of malicious mischief and its penalties are provided in

Articles 328, 329 and 330 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: “Article 328.
Special cases of malicious mischief. – Any person who shall cause damage
to obstruct the performance of public functions, or using any poisonous
or corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle; or who cause damage to the property of the National Museum or
National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public, shall be
punished:

1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if

the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;

2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the

abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos; and

3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200 pesos.

“Article 329. Other mischiefs. – The mischiefs not included in the

next preceding article shall be punished:

1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the

value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;

2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such

value is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and

3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage
caused and not more than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does not
exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated.

“Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication.

– The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon any person who shall damage any railway,
telegraph or telephone lines.”
Taking into consideration the elements of the crime charged which are:

1) that the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of

another;
2) that such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
involving destruction;
3) that the act of damaging another’s property be committed
merely for the sake of damaging it.

The elements of malicious mischief should be considered only if the

identity of the malefactor is certain – that is if there is a direct witness to
the act of damaging the property. There being no direct witness that the
complained act was done by the accused, intention to commit damage
and the justification or reason for doing the same could not be imputed
to the accused based merely on hearsay and self-serving testimonies.

Note:
Every case of malicious mischief I have encountered, the identity of
the person who caused the damaged is always known with certainty -
either they were actually seen doing the act complained of, or they
admitted to doing the act because of one reason or another.
Proposed compromise agreement:

Republic of the Philippines

3rd MCTC OF LIBMANAN-CABUSAO, CAMARINES SUR
5th Judicial Region
Libmanan, Camarines Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Complainant, CRIM CASE No. 9680
FOR: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
-versus-

EDWIN BLANCO Y BARNEDO

Accused,

X -------------------------------------x

COMPROMISED AGREEMENT

UNDERSIGNED PARTIES

CARLO B. TORIO, representative of Elsa Torio Pelagio of #1 Bisig

ng Nayon, Brgy 4 Sangandaan, Caloocan City;

and

EDWIN BLANCO, the accused, a resident of Zone 2 Brgy Bacacay,

Libmanan, Camarines Sur;

AGREE as follows:

1. That herein private complainant is claiming from herein

accused the amount of ₱22,600.00 representing the value of the
tires hacked;

2. That without going into the merits of the case and for the
purpose of buying peace, herein accused offers to settle the case
amicably by paying the above -stated amount subject to the
following mutually acceptable terms and conditions:

2.1 That herein accused shall pay the total amount of

₱22,600, giving a down payment of ₱2,600 on April 30,
 2019 and the balance payable in ten (10) monthly
installments;

2.2 That the monthly installment of the accused following

the down payment shall be fixed at ₱2,000 per month;

3. That the monthly installment shall be due every 30th of the

month; first installment on May 30, 2019;

4. That the payment shall be made to Carlo Torio at the latter’s

residence in Brgy. Bacacay, Libmanan, Camarines Sur;

5. That upon full payment of the total obligation of ₱22,600.00,

herein private complainant shall execute an affidavit of
desistance at the Prosecutor’s office subject to the approval of
the prosecutor concerned;

6. That failure of the accused to comply with the terms and

conditions of this compromise agreement particularly the full
payment of the whole amount of ₱22,600.00 shall entitle the
private complainant to apply for a writ of execution and/or the
revival of the case against him;

7. That this agreement was explained to both parties in a dialect

which is known to them and that they fully comprehend as to
the terms and conditions of this agreement;

8. That this compromise is not in any way a waiver on the part of

the complainant to prosecute the case in the event of violation
of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement;

9. That upon approval of this agreement, the prosecution will

move for the archiving of this case for the period of one year
only;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have mutually agreed

to the above stipulatons, and sign this Agreement, this ___________
day of __________________, 2019 for the consideration and approval of
this Honorable Court.

CARLO B. TORIO EDWIN B. BLANCO

rep. of Elsa Torio Pelagio Accused
Private Complainant
Assisted by:

PROS. JOYCERY FABI-CATORSE

Public Prosecutor

ATTY. MARY GRACE L. VILLAR

Counsel for the Accused
COURT OBSERVATIONS
IN GENERAL
COURT OBSERVATIONS
PER TRIAL DAY
CERTIFICATES
OF
APPEARANCE
LEGAL ASSISTANCE