Regional Trial Court: Branch_______

 We visited the court of Hon. ____________ where we were able to witness promulgation,
arraignment and plea bargaining of cases.
 The calendar of cases for the day are posted on the bulletin board outside the court. From there,
we were given an idea on what cases and stages of the proceeding are we about to observe for
the day.
 The bulk of cases were about violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act particularly illegal use, illegal
possession, and even illegal sale. Some of the cases we witnessed where about____
 Before arraignment, the PAO lawyer would ask each detention prisoner whether or not they
would seek the assistance of a private counsel or not. Majority of the detention prisoners opted to
be represented by the PAO.
 The PAO lawyer would fervently explain to the detention prisoners their available options
particularly with regard to the possibility of the availment of plea bargaining. In Judge’s ____
court, it has already been her protocol to impose the minimum term of 6 months in case of first
time offenders. Those who would avail of the plea bargaining to the lower offense of illegal use
would be required to undergo ____________ to determine the necessity of undergoing
rehabilitation. If the recommendation is to undergo rehabilitation, the detention prisoners are
given the option whether or not they would undergo the rehabilitation in Tagaytay (i.e., where they
will be charged an additional fee of P 2,000) or in Nueva Ecija (i.e., free of charge).
 There was one instance where in the accused seem to not understand what was going on in
court. He was repeatedly asked if he understood what was going on, what the proceeding was all
about, and what the consequences are of him pleading not guilty during his arraignment. The
accused said nothing as he looked back at the judge and the PAO attorney then smiled. The
judge once again repeated her questions with the Pao attorney reiterating and translating the
questions to the accused. Finally the accused gave a nervous snicker and just nodded his head.
The judge instinctively knew that something was off with him and therefore ordered that he be
psychologically evaluated before she rendered judgement.

Metropolitan Trial Court: Branch _________

 We visited the court of Hon. Aida D. Coliflores- Romero where we were able to witness the
conduct of presentation of evidence and cross examination of witnesses in various criminal
cases.
 Before the start of the trial, we were politely escorted by the branch clerk to our seats in the
courtroom. The courtroom was not that spacious so they had to manage the number of people
that would be allowed inside. So while it is true that under the Rules of Court, a trial must be
public; in reality, not everyone who wishes to enter the courtroom can just enter as a provision of
seats must first be given to the detainees, witnesses, counsel, police officers and sheriff who
have matters to attend to in court than a civilian who would just want to watch a trial for no
purpose.
 The prosecutor and the lawyer from public attorney’s office are seated side by side. The detention
prisoners or “persons deprived of liberty” are seated on the side and back benches of the court.
Each of the detention prisoners are handcuffed with each other.
 As soon as the judge arrives, all persons in the courtroom shall stand to acknowledge the judge’s
presence.
 (Person 1) reads the title and number of the first case to be heard. Upon hearing the case title,
the accused and the complainant or witness as the case may be stands in order to manifest their
attendance in court.
 When a witness is called to testify, he takes an oath first and the counsel presenting the witness
would tell the judge “witness is ready your honor”
 Whenever a witness is asked a question in English, the same is immediately translated to
Tagalog by a court staff so that the witness can better understand the question being asked and
be more responsive to it. In one instance, the judge intervened in the questioning by directly
 addressing the witness “You answer the question” when the witness fails to give a responsive
despite numerous repetition of the question by the PAO Lawyer.
 We have also witnessed how a judge facilitated the arbitration of a case for BP 22 by asking both
parties up to what extent they are willing to enter into a compromise. In this case, numerous
checks amounting to one million one hundred fifty thousand pesos (P1,150,000.00) were issued
to the complainant which bounced. The counsel of the accused presented a compromise
agreement which however the complainant did not agree with the terms of the other party
because the accused wanted to start paying on January 2020 leaving her with nothing for the
months of September leading to December. The complainant rejected the compromise
agreement thinking that the payment terms offered by the accused would not work for her benefit.
She refused to wait until next year to be paid. The judge therefore suggested to the counsel of the
accused to revise the compromise agreement and to pay at least one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) before the end of this year so as not to put the complainant in a distressing
condition of not having any money during the holidays. The counsel of the accused willingly
obliged after discussing it with his client. The complainant was still uneasy about the terms and
was worried that she might not get paid but because of the guarantee of the judge that she will
nevertheless be protected by the judgment that she will be rendering against the accused and the
compromise agreement. Finally the complainant agreed because of the reassurance of the judge
on the condition that the payments of the accused would be paid in hard-cold cash.
 In a civil case of collection of sum of money a motion for execution was filed by the complainant
on the ground that the accused failed to comply with their compromise agreement. However after
finally issuing payment and promising to be more consistent with his payments, the complainant
withdrew the motion.
 However, not all attempts of a judge to make the parties settle have been successful. In one
particular case where a woman accused the other party of grave threats on the ground that the
other party allegedly threatened her with the words “Kung gusto mo patayan na lang tayo!” (If you
want we can kill each other right now!) during a general assembly in their village, the judge
repeatedly asked the parties whether or not they would like to consider settling their issues rather
than pursue the case. The parties refused adamantly and since there was no possibility of them
reconciling, they continued with the presentation of the evidence. 
 In another case of Slight Physical Injuries the judge asked the parties before the prosecution
presented its evidence if they would consider reconciling and settling. When both parties refused
the judge had no choice but to proceed. It was the complainant who testified for the prosecution.
While on the stand, he alleged that “Bigla na lang akong binasagan ng bote sa ulo.” (He cracked
open a bottle on my head.) He was asked by the Public Attorney’s Office lawyer if he knew the
man who attacked him personally. He said he had never seen him his entire life. When asked if
he could produce any evidence of the weapon used or at least the medical certificates to prove
he went to the doctor to have his injuries evaluated, the complainant said he had nothing. He was
then asked if there was another witness who saw how he was attacked and he replied saying the
other witness was already dead. We observed the reaction of the accused to the testimony of the
complainant and was surprised to see him smiling and snickering the whole time. After the
testimony of the complainant and when he left the courtroom, the accused stayed to speak to the
police seated inside the court. He told them “Alam niyo ba bakit ko binasagan ng bote yun? Kasi
habang naglalaba ako bigla na lang niyang binuhusan ng suka yung nilalabhan ko! Nananahimik
lang ako! Gago yun eh.” (Do you know why I hit him with a bottle? While I was minding my own
business, he poured vinegar all over my laundry. Asshole.) 
 We were also able to witness a trial in absentia in a case of Resistance and Disobedience to an
Agent of Person in Authority. The accused was out on bail and when called during the trial, he
was not present. The judge confiscated the bond and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
The prosecution then proceeded with the presentation of their evidence despite the absence of
the accused.
 The importance of coming to court on time was also highlighted by some cases we have
witnessed where in the judge granted the provisional dismissal of the case on account of failure
of the complainant or witness to appear upon being called. In one case, the barangay tanods as
the supposed witnesses, arrived a few minutes late. When the judge asked them why they are
 late they said that they have a night shift that rendered it difficult for them to attend to an
afternoon trial. As a result, the bail of the accused and the accused himself was already released.
 In our visit, we seldom see the prosecutor or the PAO lawyer object to the questions propounded
to the witnesses. In one instance, the PAO lawyer asked the witness for the prosecution “ What is
the motive of the accused in throwing threats at her”. To our mind, we have learned in the Rules
of Evidence that the motive of the accused in committing the crime is irrelevant; hence, may be
objected. But the PAO lawyer did not object. 


Office of the Prosecutor

 We visited the Muntinlupa Prosecution Office where we were given a chance to witness
preliminary investigations conducted by Prosecutor _________.
 Upon entrance in the Prosecution office, we saw several windows that would cater to different
concerns such as windows for filing of new complaints, clearance, release of documents, etc.
 The third floor of the hall of justice was where the courts were which is why we could see
detainees walking up the stairs, hands bound together by their handcuffs. It fascinating to watch
them walk around the building without guards as if there was zero chances of them escaping in
the labyrinth of stairs of the hall of justice.
 We were invited inside the conference room wherein the preliminary investigations were being
conducted. Parties to the preliminary investigation are being called one by one inside by the staff
of the prosecutor when it is already their turn. Inside the conference room, the folders containing
the documents pertaining to the scheduled preliminary investigations for the day are arranged.
 The Prosecutor would talk to the parties casually and ask them whether or not they would like to
reach into an amicable settlement, especially when the dispute involves members of the same
family. In one case, a complaint for frustrated homicide was filed by ____ against his ____. The
prosecutor asked them “ Wala na ba talaga kayong balak magayos?”. Unfortunately, not even the
attempted conciliatory efforts of the prosecutor could make the parties settle since according to
them, the dispute between their family goes way back.
 The Prosecutor gave us the opportunity to experience first hand what his job entailed by allowing
us to read a complaint, the counter affidavits along with the corresponding attachments. He would
even ask us what crime he should file based on the facts given.

National Labor Relations Commission

Xxx

xxx

Conclusion

Xxx

xxx

Appendix (insert pictures here)