PRACTICE COURT NOTES Date: April 24, 2012 Judge: Hon. Maria Corazon B.

Gaite-Llanderal

Branch No. 40, Regional Trial Court Clerk of Court: Atty. Randy E. Agustin

Majority of the cases lined up in Branch 40 are concentrated on the violations of Sections 11, 5 and 15 of RA 9165. The first case called was People vs. Geraldo Nacalaban y Bermudo wherein the Prosecution presented its 3rd witness who is a Barangay Kagawad. The said witness through the questioning of the Prosecutor had identified the accused and further relayed to the court the details on the procedures observed in confiscating and seizing the drugs and drug paraphernalia involved in the raid. The Barangay Kagawad also told the court that such accused is known to him because the accused is his nephew. In the second case called which is entitled People vs. Mark Love Joy Quilinguen y Montalba, a Barangay Kagawad was likewise called to testify on the stand. The purpose of his testimony according to the Prosecution was to identify the inventory of objects seized. The testimony included the identification of the witness of his name and signature on the inventory list of the items seized during the raid. The witness also told the court that he made such signature inside the barangay hall. Another notable case during the courts proceeding is entitled People vs. Nathaniel Suniega Y Echanova. The witness called to testify is a forensic chemist. The said witness was called to testify due to a request letter received by the police to examine the confiscated item. The witness testified that the evidence gathered from the raid was not tampered with because the evidence was received as marked by the witness who was previously presented in court. There was a case entitled People vs. Chuck Ladra Madroo which was dismissed for lack of sufficiency of evidence. The accused in People vs. Kim Saydai was acquitted by the court. The witness in the case entitled People vs. Reygan Romero y Manhoo was represented by his mother. The court was told that the witness suffered from diarrhea which prevented him to go to court. APRIL 25, 2012 BRANCH NO. 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO 2011-056 DYNA SANCHEZ VS. RUBERICO C. SANCHEZ DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE based on Psychological Incapacity CONTENT OF THE PETITIONERS TESTIMONY: Married, March 11, 1989 at Lagon, CDO Marriage contract confirmed by the witness XU classmate introduced them to each other They were both members of a school organization. sabay-sabay/accompanying her while going home Her family used to live in a staff house of the company where her father was the manager. Husband originated from Camp Philippines, Bukidnon There was no courtship period in their relationship. It was when they became friends that her husband asked her to be his girlfriend. Mother did not agree to their relationship. Husband was a jealous type boyfriend; close minded; selfish-self-centered Arguments and fighting would frequently occur

Husband is always angry Even when the husband is already her boyfriend, the husband would flirt with her friends. Showed violent manner-sumbagon taka Why did you still marry him?; Reply: Petitioner got pregnant; prevent embarrassment; Wedding expenses shouldered by the petitioners parents. 1st year of Marriage: Chaotic No stable home Rented a house at Carmen Husbands sister was living with them to help out but actually spying on them. Petitioner was physically abused by the husband. She doesnt want to leave him because they have kids together. In-laws were aware; petitioner told them. Husband had a job as a medical representatives and as a EG Collins employee Husband was able to financially provide for his own family and his parents. She and the husband have 4 kids: 3 daughters and a son. The petitioners lawyer presented the birth certificates of the children to present as evidence. Husband shouldered his parents hospitalization expenses or medicare and he even provided them with some of their meals. The children went to a public school. They transferred to Davao City It caused her to be far away from her parents. She was physically abused where she was thrown at the stairs. She was even punched in the stomach. The cause of the fight was about money After the said incident, husband went away for 7 days. The co-workers of the husband had seen him at a motel. She was treated as a housemaid. Husband used to work as a supervisor at EG Collins for 4 years. Husband only gave her money for food. Husband was relieved from the company for he used the companys money. The company sued him but he was able to pay off the money he used from the company He has his own office but doesnt like his members of the family seating in his chair at the office. When she and one of their kids tried to seat in his chair at the office, the petitioner was shouted at. He didnt explain; Hes the boss. In-laws were described to be bad and interesting because the in-laws tolerated the husbands bad behaviour. Husband was disrespectful. They have no family bonding. They only go to church twice a month. Husband lied to her. He would tell her that he would be with his friends on a business trip but he could not be reached by phone. Husband does not have an emotional connection to their kids. He spanked their children. Husband left to the US at 2000 to escape a case against him filed by LG Collins. He went back with a wife. Husbands parents told her that her husband is married. CROSS-EXAMINATION Why did you still marry him? She hoped that he would change and that she was pregnant at the time.

The husbands family was living at a squatters area at the time that she and her husband were not married. Husbands family is very dependent on her husband for support. Marriage counselling was not pursued. He was angry when he spanked his children. JUDGES QUESTIONS How long have they been together when she got pregnant? 6 months. Had she not realized that the husbands family was poor which is why they are very dependent on her husband? The husbands definition of basic support meant that he shall only provide for food since he came from a poor family. Husband stopped her to get a job to provide enough for their children. 2011-065 CHARLOTTE JENIFER VALDEZ-ORDA VS. MICHAEL ORDA DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE WITH CUSTODY The parties got married on March 19, 1995 The wife firs met her husband during her assignment in Agusan. She previously learned on December 2003 that her husband previously got married. She was told that such married was annulled and her husband presented a judicial decree of the annulment issued by a Paranaque court on February 18, 2003. She believed the proof presented to her since the court was signed. She even met her former wife and his two kids from the previous marriage to confirm whether her husband was really telling the truth. This happened before she got married to him. She learned that the previous marriage was not annulled when she got the necessary papers for her application to a UN Deployment. She learned from a record at NSO that they were 2 marriages recorded to Michael Orda. Furthermore, Branch 258 of Paranaque sent a letter stat that it had not issued such annulment order. The letter was sent to her on January 2011. She even talked to clerk of court of the branch no. 258 of Paranaque where the clerk of court said that the annulment was false and such was not issued. No certification of death of the former wife from NSO. Petitioner has one daughter with the respondent and she has actual custody of their child. Respondent is living with his parents in Paranaque. Respondent does not visit his daughter. They had a compromise agreement for support and custody concerning their child. Another cause of the breakdown of the marriage is that their relationship was shaky. Furthermore, the husband is unemployed and he is also an irresponsible father. They have been separated for two to three years. These factors are already present during her application for UN deployment. 2011-447 PEOPLE VS. FRANCISCO LLANTUNA MALTREATMENT The witness who testified is the mother of the private complainant. She testified on the June 2011 incident. Her son who is 6 years old on June 15 was playing hide and seek at the chapel. She saw Francisco Llantuna hit her son with a slipper. The slipper hit her sons head. When the accused saw her, he ran to his house. She went to the accuseds house and asked why he hit her son.

Accused told her that her son stole some of his motor parts and toys. She made a police blotter of the incident. She was advised to get a medical examination for her son. However, when they got to a hospital her son was not attended to at Northern Hospital. They went to the Barangay Hall to make a complaint but the respondent only appeared once. The complaint was not settled. Certificate of Inaction was issued. Her son was traumatized after the incident. Her son had nightmares. CROSS EXAMINATION When you went to his house, does the accused have his slippers with him? JUDGES QUESTION Were the kids asked what happened? Just playing hide and seek. 2007 4665, 466,467 PEOPLE VS. ZALDY BBATIAN y YBAEZ RAPE/SEXUAL ABUSE IN VIOLENCE OF R.A. 7610 ART. III SEC. B. VIOLATION OF R.A. 7610 ART. VI, SEC. 10 (A) The witness name is Imelda Alongay. The husband raped the adopted child. APRIL 26, 2012 BRANCH 3, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES; JUDGE ROMUALDO E. GALLARRITA The cases are all small money claim cases. The judge just explained the procedures on small money claim cases. The manner of payment is in staggered amount. Such cases cannot be appealed. One of the cases entitled Susana O. Bedasua vs. Sps. Alejandro/Nida Barrios (c12-Jan-034) for collection of sum of money was dismissed without prejudice. No summon/subpoena was issued against the respondent. Private lawyers are not allowed to participate. Only litigants should file the pleadings. There is a pro-forma complaint/defense. Summons/notice of hearing are issued. 2008 SC decisions: 3% interest-used money. 2 stages: 1) JDR to reach a settlement; 2) Informal trial. Lupon vs. JDR: In Lupon, if it cannot reach a decision, it issues a certification while in JDR, it can remove other challenges. Informal trial: Plaintiff in the witness shall ask and answer their own questions. APRIL 27, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO 2008-064 PEOPLE VS. FERNANDO MUTIA A.K.A. RICHARD FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. 9262 Presentation of the 4th prosecution witness. The witness is a police officer whose name is PO2 Baluto. Jan. 25, 2008: Zenaida Pasco, the private complainant, called for police assistance. Her live-in partner threatened to kill her with a knife. Responded to help by going to the victims home. Zenaida identified her partner. Informed the accused of his rights. Thereafter, he willingly went to the police station. Police investigated. Witness identified the accused in court. 2006-097 JOY G. LABIS, ET. AL. VS. RAMON LABIS FOR PROTECTION ORDER On March 05, the petitioner waived her right to cross-examine the witness. The petitioner is not present. Cross-examination of the 2nd respondents witness

The witness is the nanny of the parties youngest daughter since 2001-2002. She worked for them for 2 years. She stated the details of her responsibilities. Description of the family life: Continuous arguments/altercation Causes: Jealousy; eating out; Ramon doesnt like to eat out. Joy had a loud mouth; Ramon is always calm; Children can hear and see them fighting Ramon as a father: Responsible; caring; loving Joy loves their kids but there are times that she spanked them. Ramon was never abusive; he is always calm. Joy always nags Ramon. She has never seen Ramon physically hurt Joy. Reason for living: Could not bear Joys behaviour. Joy would leave instructions at 9 pm; It caused her to sleep late. When she stopped working for them, Joy would call her. At present, she is no longer working with them. CROSS EXAMINATION Ramons mother introduced her as a yaya. She took care of the 2 children and a 9 month old baby. The baby was not more than 2 years when she stopped working for them. Joy would call her to take care of their kids Nannies have the same reason for leaving the household. APRIL 30, 2012 BRANCH 05, MTCC; JUDGE MICHELIA O. CAPADOCIA PEOPLE VS. KIMBERLY JUNE ESLIT FOR GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION The witness is the 2nd witness for the defense. Her name is Fatima Macao, a businesswoman. Testified on October 19, 2010 incident. A police blotter was made regarding the incident. Discussed the incident that had happened in the barangay hall. The witness has 3 children. In October 2010, she sells imported goods and her customers were her neighbors in Cugman. Such incident happened outside her house. She reminded Evelyn Abao to settle her loan with her. Kimberly Eslit was looking at the witness with a a dagger look and she asked what her problem was. The witness replied that she has no problem and you are my problem. Eslit accused her in public that she has many lovers while fortunately for her, she only has one husband. Eslit shouted at her which she called her an old woman, an animal with a hand expression and an angry voice. The witness angrily retorted that the reason she has many men was because she is beautiful and that Eslit was fat even though she has only one child.

Again, Eslit retorted in a loud which she can hear from her kitchen that she has many lovers and that the witness is a swindler. The witness felt hurt by Eslits statement and could not sleep since the incident. She still felt deeply hurt by the incident. The witness was testifying while she was testifying. She felt ashamed and embarrassed from her neighbors. She filed a complaint before the barangay against Ana Eslit and Kimberly Eslit. Kimberly Eslit offered to borrow her a baptismal dress for her nephew. When she filed a case against Kimberly Eslits mother, Kimberly Eslit would give her a dirty and defamatory remark against her every time she passed by Kimberlys house. Due to the case filed against Kimberlys mother, Kimberly wanted to get the baptismal dress from her. She would relay the request through the relatives of the witness. The witness told her that they should get the dress personally from her and at the same give the payment of their loan with her. The private complainant presented as evidence the police blotter document regarding the June incident so that it may be put on record. The incident (Oct 20, 2010) was regarding the harassment they made against her whenever she passed by the Eslits house. After the October 19, 2010 incident, the witness kept her silence and waited for the result of the complaint she filed in the barangay hall. She had encountered a bastos incident at the barangay hall where the Eslits were shouting in front of the Barangay Hall saying that they were not afraid of her just because she filed a case against them. On Nov. 26, 2010, the barangay issued a certification to file an action. Thereafter, the witness was thinking twice on whether to file a case against them or not. She decided to find a lawyer. The private prosecutor had asked the witness to elaborate on the actual expenses she incurred in filing the case against them such the amount she had to spend in looking for a lawyer, payment for the lawyer to accept her case, the fee incurred to process the necessary paper in filing a case in court. The witness had stated that she had to pay P20,000 for the lawyers acceptance fee and P2,000 for the lawyers appearance fee. The private prosecutor had asked her to elaborate on the pain she suffered from the incident. The witness stated that such pain could not be monetized and that her reputation as a businesswoman, wife and mother to her 3 children has suffered due to the incidents that transpired. CROSS EXAMINATION The witness did not acquire a business permit since the barangay had allowed her to do business since it is a small one. Her children have different fathers but she is still married to her 2nd husband. Her 3rd child has a different father. Anna Mae Eslit is a laundry woman and her husband is an electrician. The private prosecutor objected to the line of questioning stating that the financial condition of the defendant is irrelevant. The witness said that she and Kimberly Eslit were good friends at the time she borrowed the baptismal dress. She could afford to buy a baptismal dress but since Kimberly offered, she accepted the offer. The witness gave a brief detail on the October 19, 2010 incident. She said that she was already angry with the defendant. Witness had denied that she had heard Kimberlys statement where she said that since she is older than her, she is supposed to be the one to guide her.

RE-DIRECT The witness said that she was angry at the defendant because of the series of incidents that had transpired between her and the Eslits. She has been separated from her first husband since 1997. RE-CROSS The community is fully aware of the situation between her and her first husband. JUDGES QUESTIONS The misunderstanding between the witness and Kimberly Eslit started in April 26, 2010 which is right after the town fiesta. The witness filed a case against Kimberlys mother, Ana. Ana has been saying many things about her. The witness does not know why Ana is angry with her. Neighbors had been asking why Ana and her are fighting. On Aug. 8, 201, Oct. 15 and 19, 2010, she filed oral defamation cases against Ana. The private prosecutor had asked the court to subpoena Evelyn Abao as a witness. The court is not inclined to issue a subpoena when the October 19, 2010 case is filed before Branch 03, MTCC. The court asked that the next time the case shall be called, the 3 cases shall be consolidated. PEOPLE VS. JEFF EVAN RATUNIL FOR ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS The first witness for the Defense is the defendant himself. The private complainant, Jenelyn Daguray and the witness are friends. Favors were asked such as borrowing money and asking for a ride in the defendants vehicle. They were also neighbors. In August 2008, he started constructing his house. 3 weeks after, he came to know the private complainant. He met her through her uncle. He would ask water for his workers from the private complainant. The witness car is a tamaraw FX. The private complainant had 8 times asked him for a ride for her to go to school. She asked her to drop her at Ororama. On September 18, 2008, she had asked helped from him to fill out a form. Thereafter, she had asked for a ride. When he dropped her in Ororama, she had asked him to pick her up at 1 pm in Ororama. He assumed that she would ask help in filling out a form. The witness waited for her at the 2nd floor of Ororama. He told her that they should fill up the form at a nice place. They should go to a private place to fill up the form. The place he referred to is High Time. The witness told her that High Time is a private hotel. The private complainant asked him to give her a cellphone; She had previously asked him (4 times) for money. The witness would usually give her P100 or P200 when he has money. He told her that he would not be able to give her a cellphone for he has little money. The private complainant entered first to the private room while he ordered food. He told the private complainant that they would have their snacks first before they fill up the form. 3 minutes after, the boy arrived with their food. Immediately, the private complainant left. The witness wondered or was surprised as to why she left. He later learned that the private complainant was hiding in the waiting taxi. CROSS EXAMINATION The private complainant had asked to help her fill up a form for the Philippine Navy.

The witness did not know what kind of help she needed with the form. After she dropped her off, he was thinking of buying construction materials for his house. High Time according to the witness is a sex place. The private complainant was not aware that such place is a place for lovers. The witness did not say anything while they were on their way to High Time. The private prosecutor said that her silence may mean that she was surprised. The witness went to the private complainants house. The Uncle told him that he has no business with him and that he will see him in court. The witness went to the house to ask for forgiveness because he brought the girl to a private place. RE-DIRECT In principle, silence means yes. The prosecutor objected on the ground that the question asked was a leading question. JUDGES QUERY The witness possessed sufficient maturity. What was his intention in bringing the girl to High Time. He was afraid that his wife might see them. He had seen the girl took a bath outside her house in sexy clothes. He was seduced when the girl wore short and tight pants. He was tempted. The accused was aware that the girl and her family were new to the area. They previously lived in Gusa. PEOPLE VS. JANET ALMACEA FOR COMMITTING THE CRIME OF THEFT Prosecutor sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the private complainant is no longer interested to pursue the case. The prosecutor requested that the bond be released in favour of the complainant since the civil obligation was not paid. APRIL 30, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO Series of arraignment were made in the court. The accused in People vs. Mark Anthony dela Vega (2002-100) pleaded not guilty for committing RAPE. The information was read to him in the Visayan dialect. The case is scheduled to be called at 1:30 pm on May 23, 2012. The accused in People vs.Fernacelis Manontag pleaded not guilty for the crime of violating Sec. I of R.A. 9262. The accused physically harmed his live-in partner. The accused in People vs. Faisal Basman y Saicamane pleaded not guilty for violating Sec. 5 par. 1 Art. II of RA 9165 on the ground that he was a minor when he sold prohibited drugs. The accused in People vs. Richard Gingaray pleaded not guilty for the crime of violating Sec. 10(a) of R.A. 7610. The accused threw stones at the parents of the victims but he had accidentally hit the head one of the children involved in the case. MAY 02, 2012 BRANCH 41, RTC; JUDGE JEOFFRE W. ACEBIDO PEOPLE VS. ERIC SCHWANDER FOR COMMITTING ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS Presentation of the 5th witness for the Defense The witness testifying is the mother of the accused.

The mother stated that the father of the accused is a German national. She also stated that there was a case filed against his son by a police officer but it was dismissed. She admitted that his son is a drunkard. The accused informed her mother that he has no knowledge of the crime charged against him.

PEOPLE VS. FELICITAS R. EGARGO(2011-213) FOR COMMITTING ESTAFA The case was at a pre-trial stage. The accused was pretending to be an employee. She had a Landbank ATM card containing twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) One witness shall be presented each for the parties involved in the case. The court issued subpoena for the witnesses. The case was scheduled to be called on June 05 and June 28, 2012. PEOPLE VS. RENE MANABA (2010-473) FOR THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE The prosecution was supposed to present its 4th witness but instead asked the court to issue a subpoena for Dr. Bravo. PEOPLE VS. COHEY CUENCO (2009-638) FOR VIOLATION OF PD 1602 The prosecution was supposed to present its initial evidence on March 7, 2012 but failed to do so. Due to the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the case was dismissed. PEOPLE VS. ROLANDO BETULAN, ET. AL FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBERY Presentation of the 4th witness for the Defense. CEBU FORTUNE GAS VS. PORT MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF CAGAYAN DE ORO It is a civil case. It is an action for replevin with damages. The parties have come up with a settlement. The parties would have to present the compromise agreement for the courts approval and to prove the motion for the recommendation to terminate the case. The case was at a pre-trial stage. MAY 02, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO PEOPLE VS. GLOBERT PESTANAS , PEOPLE VS. BERNARDINO N. OCO, JR., PEOPLE VS. CHRISTOPHER LIMBARO Y DELIG, PEOPLE VS. AGUILAR AND PEOPLE VS. CARLITO JALAN Y PAGASPAS Majority of the cases of violation of section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 was dismissed on the ground that the private complainants have withdrawn their complaints. As part of the process to dismiss these cases, the private complainants have to be on the witness stand to confirm that they have voluntarily executed an affidavit of desistance. One of the reasons cited in the testimonies represented were that they have reconciled with their husbands or partners and that certain conditions shall be observed by the accused for the withdrawal of the charges against them.

In People vs. Bernardino N. Oco, Jr., the condition for the withdrawal is that there must be a settlement of the civil aspect of the case which is worth three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000). In People vs. Carlito Jalan y Pagaspas, the condition is that there must be a share between them of the proceeds that will be derived from the coconut plantation.

NEMAR D. TAGUPA VS. IMELDA ABELLANA FOR PARTITION OF PROPERTIES UNDER ART. 147 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILS. No agreement was reached at the Philippine Mediation Center. The court ordered the parties to present a project of partition so that the court may rule on its propriety. The case is scheduled to be heard on May 16, 2012. MAY 03, 2012 BRANCH 41, RTC; JUDGE JEOFFRE W. ACEBIDO SPOUSES OSCAR SALCEDO VS. UCPR RURAL BANK (2009-293) The case was for the declaration of Nullity of the Notarys Certificate of Sale The witness had her property subject for extrajudicial foreclosure. She and her husband contracted an agricultural loan with the bank worth Eleven Million pesos (P11 M). The loan was released in staggered basis. The loan was secured with the house and lot in Macasandig and a farm lot. They had received an extrajudicial foreclosure order from the bank and deposited in their account worth P802,000 when they received such order. They sought advice from a lawyer to take steps to prevent the order. They even sought a negotiation with the Bank regarding their manner of payment but the bank declined to negotiate. A nullity order was soon issued at a RTC in Malaybalay of Bukidnon. Fortunately, the court granted an injunction order against the bank upon their filing of an action for a temporary restraining order. However, another letter was sent to her informing the couple that the property in Macasandig was foreclosed. In response, the couple filed a petition for indirect contempt before the RTC in Malaybalay against the bank. It has come to their knowledge that the titles were already transferred to UCPBR based on the records at the Register of Deeds. There was posting of the notice of auction made at the barangay hall. A notary certificate of sale came into her possession courtesy of the couples neighbour. They even presented P1M to restructure the couples loan with the bank. They were not even allowed to withdraw their deposit accounts.

MAY 03, 2012 BRANCH 38, RTC; JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL ENGR. EDUARD R. QUIJANO & LORETO MENCHAVES VS. HON VICENTE S. PARAGAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB) AND SILVER SWAN MANUFACTURING REPRESENTATIVE BY MR. BENJAMIN SISON AND MR. JIMMY UY AS MANAGER The hearing was for an application for a temporary restraining order. The parties through counsels presented their respective arguments for and against the grant of preliminary injunction On Nov. 16, 2011, an order was issued to demolish the properties of Dr. Quirkes. Dr. Quirkes voluntary complied with the destruction of the properties in question in the Nov. 16, 2011. However, upon ocular inspection of Mr. Paragas, he had included the other properties near the destroyed properties of Dr. Quirkes. The petitioner opposed to the order of Mr. Paragas on the ground that such property was neither on a creek nor a dry land which therefore would not cause nuisance. The respondents through counsel argued that such properties still belong to Dr. Quirke on the ground that the Quijanos are blood relatives of the Quirkes. The court stated that the TRO must be issued on the consideration of grave and irreparable damage. The court believed that the petitioner has not proved its burden. The petitioner is requested to present maps to determine on whether the property was on a river bed. If it is on a river bed, it would cause harm to the public and consequently subject to the control of the government. The petitioner is requested to present a competent authority on the subject matter. The respondent is requested to present Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000) as bond if ever the court would rule in favour of the petitioner. MAY O4, 2012 BRANCH 19, RTC; JUDGE EVELY GAMOTIN NERY In People vs. Christina Marylene Rusel Dalingay for Violation of RA 7610, Art. IV, Sec. 10(a), the court required one of the counsels of the parties to put in writing the need to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution In Rosalie Yap Lim vs. Rodolfo Roderick F. Pelaez II, et. Al. for Support with Prayer for Support Pendente Lite, the court would go over the social case study report in rendering a decision on the case. In Noe E. Opea vs. Nenita L. Opea for declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, the respondent testified. Within the first year of the parties marriage and in her 9 month pregnancy, her husband left her for another woman. The couple had a series of reunification and separation but the husband would only leave her for another woman. To further show that her husband was suffering from psychological incapacity, she had raped her when she visited him at Lumbia jail. The husband never gave financial support for their child.

MAY 04, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO Series of arraignment were conduct for the crime of slight physical injuries, violation of R.A. 7610 and 9262 and several motions were presented before the court for consideration. Some are deemed submitted for resolution while others were denied. MAY 08, 2012 BRANCH 38, RTC; JUDGE EMMANUEL PASAL

RURAL TRANSIT (MINDANAO) INC. VS. SPS. STEVEN ENTERINA AND EMMA ENTERINA AND DIONY F. NUNEZ FOR DAMAGES Vehicular accident Witness is an investigator and liaison officer of RTMI (plaintiff). Witness identified a judicial affidavit. The bus company suffered for the medical expenses for the injuries suffered by the passengers. CROSS EXAMINATION On July 10, 2009, the accident was a major incident. The witness made a report regarding the incident. The witness report failed to mention the report he made. The affidavit only stated that he secured a police report of the vehicular accident. On the spot report, the driver was not at fault. Driver was charged with a criminal case---reckless imprudence Presumed that the medicines bought would be administered to the patients. The medicines bought would be given to the hospital and that he has not actually seen that the medicines were administered to the patients. The bus companys responsibility was to buy the medicines according to the doctors prescription. The witness has seen the police report but he has not read it. MAY 08, 2012 BRANCH 03, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES; JUDGE CESAR A. MERLAS No PAO lawyer JDR lecture was given. MAY 09, 2012 BRANCH 37, RTC; JUDGE JOSE ESCOBIDO RICA O. ABINES SAMIJON VS. RODRIGO B. SAMIJON FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE Witness is a psychiatrist. Witness made a psychiatric report The report indicated the method in determining the psychological incapacity of the respondent. The report shall state the doctors conclusions and her findings based on the people interviewed. The witness conducted a psychiatric interview with the petitioner (3x). The witness sent a letter to the respondent to request an interview. The letter remained unacknowledged.

She interviewed the petitioners sister and the children of the parties who are 16 and 17 years of age respectively. She found that the petitioner has a normal range of behaviour while the respondent has a passive aggressive behaviour. Respondent was passive aggressive because he did not communicate well to his family nor he did not adequately his family. Respondent was caught in an intimate setting with another man. He was caught having a sexual relation with a man. Respondents passive aggression was grave enough to dissolve the marriage. The respondent has bisexual relations. CROSS EXAMINATION Passive aggression is not synonymous with bad character or faith. Respondents passive character was the cause of the petitioners problem. Neighbours would hear the couple fight for they would hear the respondents voice and the wife would have puffy eyes after the fight. The children would observe that the father is irritable. The witness concluded that the respondent as a soldier and a bisexual caused him to be stressed. SPS. JEFFREY P. MABAO AND BAVILYN T. CALURASAN AS PETITIONERS IN A SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR ADOPTION The biological father gave his consent to the adoption of his child. The child is legitimated. He confirmed that he had voluntarily executed an affidavit of consent. At present, the mother of the child is married. Mariel is the name of the child. The cause of their break up with the childs mother is that he and the mother always quarrelled when the child was born. He did not receive any monetary consideration SANTIAGO C. SABAL VS. MARINA GLORIA ROA FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE Raymundo Roa is the uncle of the respondent. On the witness stand, he identified a judicial affidavit as his. According to the witness, Roland Capistano is the first husband of the respondent. He only saw Roland Capistrano in the late 80s. His niece told him that she and Roland Capistrano were married. They did not have a children of their own. MAY 11, 2012 BRANCH 23, RTC; JUDGE HENRY B. DAMASING 2009 160 CASE FOR DECLARATIONOF THE NULLITY OF THE FORECLOSURE OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON FRAUD Petitioners counsel argued for the immediate resolution of the case on the ground that the petitioner is working in Bahrain and he only several days left in his stay in the Phils. Before he needs to go back to work in Dubai. The petitioners made a housing loan (P200,000) with Pag-ibig and such loan was secured with his house. Petitioner defaulted on his loan. Pag-Ibig sold the house to a new buyer.

The petitioner would want to repurchase the property since it is his family home. The petitioner and the private respondent, who is the new buyer, could not agree on the purchasing price. The petitioner would be willing to pay an initial payment of P700,000 but the new buyer would want to have a total payment of P936,000 where a 12% interest was imposed for the use of money. The case is subject to be called on May 24 and 31 for further discussion on reaching an agreement on the manner of payment. MAY 14, 2012 BRANCH 18, RTC; JUDGE DENNIS Z. ALCANTARY AT&T REALTY AND COMMERCIAL CORP. VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILS. Petitioner had a loan with the bank ranging from 32 M to 117 M. Petitioners counsel sought to call its witness again on the ground that the said witness has not testified on the exhibit presented before the court. Respondents counsel opposed the motion on the ground that petitioner had already had its chance to question the witness and would be wasting the courts time to call the witness again. The court required the counsels of the parties to submit their respective memorandum within 10 days to thoroughly discuss their grounds for and against the motion.

MAY 15, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO ELEANOR P. MORENO AND ELEANOR T. FABURADA VS. FERMIN TACASTAS for TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER Witness and her mother are seeking temporary protection order against the respondent. The respondent is her mothers live-in mother. The witness is a nurse working in the United States. The witness told the court that she saw her mother and the respondent arguing. The witness also told the court that she saw the respondent threw bottles at her mother and pointed a gun at her mother. MAY 16, 2012 BRANCH 22, RTC; JUDGE RICHARD D. MORDENO DYNA SANCHEZ VS. RUBERICO C. SANCHEZ FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE The witness is the eldest child of the couple who is 22 years old and a 2nd year college student. The witness last saw her father when she was in Grade Six. She is now working. She and her mom pay the rent at Bellevue. Her father introduced his wife from the States. Her parents mainly fought about financial matter and her fathers relatives. When her parents fought, she would see her mom crying but has not seen her father physically hurting her mother. She had, however, seen bruises on her mothers body.

Her mother would only tell her that they were just quarrelling. Her fathers relatives depended too much on her father but they hate her mother. She had stopped going to school but her father remained financially supporting his nieces and her uncles schooling. MAY 17, 2012 BRANCH 05, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN IN CITIES; JUDGE MICHELIA CAPADOCIA

PEOPLE VS. ARMANDO MAQUINTO for HOMICIDE The court rendered judgment that the accused is free and that his four year stay in prison shall be credited to his penalty of 20 days imprisonment for the crime of slight physical injuries. The cause of the delay of rendering the decision was that the court had waited for the submission of the lawyers memoranda which had lapsed the 90 days requirement to render judgment on a case.