Candelaria, Michelle Dulce MarianoCRIMINAL PROCEDURE | Sunday 1-4PMArellano University School of Law

COURT VISIT OBSERVATION REPORT

Date of Observation or Visit: 05 March 2015 (Thursday)

Time of Observation or Visit: 8:30 AM to 10:45 AM (Morning Session)

Venue: Regional Trial Court (First Judicial Region)

Branch: Branch 30 (Family Court)

Place of Court: San Fernando City, La Union

Presiding Judge: Hon. Alpino P. Florendo

Provincial Prosecutor: Pros. Yvonne B. Lacsina (Provincial Cases)

City Prosecutor: Pros. Irene C. Corpuz (City Cases)

OIC Branch Clerk of Court: Ms. Allen T. Sarmiento

Court Interpreter: Ms. Elnora E. Manangan

Court Stenographer: Ms. Teresita P. Marigza

Process Server: Mr. Severino M. Marigza

CASES OBSERVED

1. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9638 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS PETER MARCOS Y SUMBAGAN FOR: HEARING ON THE MOTION (REFER CASE TO DIVERSION COMMITTEE)FRUSTRATED MURDER ATTY. CRISTINA JENNY R CARINO – COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

2. CIVIL CASE NO. 9132 – RONNIE ALMOJUELA HERNANDEZ VS MARBEN JOY LEMON GARCIA-HERNANDEZ FOR: PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

ATTY. RODRIGO G. RUPINTA – COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

ATTY. RONALD G. DINOS – COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

3. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10219 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RAYMUND APIADO Y DACANAY FOR: CONTINUATION OF HEARING

RAPEATTY. MANOLITO HIDALGO – COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

4. CRIMINAL CASE NO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JERICHO NATARTE Y EMPISO FOR: CONTINUATION OF HEARING

VIOL. OF SEC. 5 (B) OF RA 7610ATTY: CRISTINA JENNY R. CARINO – COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

OBSERVATION IN GENERAL

COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT

The courtroom has a sitting capacity of approximately 20 to 25 people (maximum). The room is

well-lighted and ventilated (air-conditioned). It was noted that the justice chamber appeared to be a

hoary or old building since it was built in the early 1900s. The courtroom also served as a storage room

because some timeworn documents and other court files were stacked on a corner and you can see it

instantly upon entering the room. Observers (including the Judge) were easily distracted as people were

entering and leaving the courtroom.

THE JUDGE

The judge appeared to have things well under control in his courtroom and kept the

proceedings moving forward efficiently. He spoke clearly and distinctly so that everyone in the

courtroom could hear. However, he displayed some impatience in his comments and facial

expressions when the defense attorney (in Case No. 4) fumbled about during cross-

examination. His frustration was understandable, but it seemed inappropriate for the judge to

display such emotions.

During the cross examination of witnesses, the judge leniently examined the witness on

the stand, he even asked the question in Ilokano for the witness to fully understand the

question before answering, and he also interprets the answer of the witness.

The Judge (in case No. 4) directly saying to the defense counsel during the cross

examination of the witness, that the defense must stick to the alibi wherein the sole purpose of

the cross examination is the only whereabouts of the accused. “No need to ask questions that is

already on record” the Judge said.

The judge, in many times, asked clarificatory questions to the witness, defense counsel

and prosecutor. The judge is very respectful and accommodating, brilliant and notable.

THE PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor provided a big contrast to the defense counsel. She was very confident

and offhand. She did not shuffle papers or take long pauses during questioning to consult her

notes. She simply asked questions in a very direct, concise way. Ms. Prosecutor looked very

professional in a conservative dark suit and low heels. Her appearance in no way detracted

from her performance.

THE DEFENSE COUNSEL

I was, quite frankly, very unimpressed with the Defense counsels (Cases No. 3 and No.

4). They appeared disorganized and unsure. They spent a lot of time shuffling papers between

questions, which caused everyone (herself /himself included) to lose the focus of the

questioning. They both spoke in a monotone and so low that I had to strain to hear them.

In Case No. 3, the defense counsel’s appearance was a distraction. His suit did not fit

him well, and in my opinion, he needed a haircut. His rumpled appearance underscored the

impression that he was not very professional.

The defense counsel in case No. 4 was very respectful towards the witness during cross-

examination. I found this to be odd, since I thought that usually a defense attorney will be

uncouth to the prosecutor’s witnesses.

The defense counsel in Case No. 2 displayed disrespectful behavior (in my opinion)

when asked how much is the monthly income of the respondent, he didn’t knew the answer

and instead of asking permission first from the judge to consult his client, what he did was

asked his client directly in the courtroom. His client is 3-4 meters away from him. I also

observed that he didn’t knew some vital facts of the case, for example the Judge asked the

defense if who is in custody of the child and what is the age of the child, the defense didn’t

knew the answer to the question, instead the clerk of court answered the question based on

the records.

THE COURT PERSONNEL

The bailiff for the court was exceptionally helpful. He explained the nature of the case

and provided me with a copy of the docket listing the name of the case, the names of the

attorneys, and the charges.

Also, the Court Interpreter is very spontaneous and uses the appropriate words for the

witness to understand the questions being asked. Bravo!

THE ACCUSED RIGHTS

The accused’s rights were uphold, protect and given due respect as to their identity in cases No.

1 and 4, where both the accused are minors. The Judge instructed both the defense and prosecution,

that in the manner of questioning the witness, both counsel must refer to the accused as a “minor” not

his real name so as to protect the rights of the said minor-accused.

RATE

I rate RTC Branch 30 of San Fernando City, La Union with 3 Stars. Good Job. I was

impressed with the Prosecutor and the Judge’s performance.