Host (Lakas): John Michael Moralejo

Contestant (Ganda): Ros Montilla

Ask the audience: Matadora: Lingelle Guillermo

Call-a-friend: Malaya: Dezs Matito; Mayari: Rochelle Sarsosa

50-50 explanation (2): Frances Inocencio

Ask the expert: Rochelle Sarsosa

Explanation to the Million Peso Answer: Dezs Matito

Host (H): Good afternoon AUSL! I’m Lakas your host for today’s show: *everyone shouts: WHO
WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE.* Our winner in the preliminary round is is Ms. Ganda can you
please introduce yourself?

Contestant (C): Good afternoon everyone. I am Ganda. I am a first year law student from AUSL.
(adlib na lang daw sabi ni Ros)

H: Ahh, so you want to become a lawyer someday? Can you tell us why you want to become a
lawyer and some of the tasks of a lawyer that you know?

C: I want to become a lawyer to be able to become a better member of society by being able to
help the less fortunate in their legal problems.A lawyer’s basic role is to see to it that he wins
the case, not by fair or foul means, but to convince the court of the validity of your client’s
cause of action as buttressed by the evidence, that your client is right and that he deserves the
favorable judgment and reliefs that you are praying the court to grant.

These are some of tasks that a lawyer must

a. To present all evidence that is necessary in order to comply with all the legal
requisites of your cause of action or your defense that will comply with the
theory aspect of trial work

b. To know when to present a particular evidence so that it will have the most
impact

c. Know how to conduct or ask questions to your witnesses so that it will be the
witness speaking to the court rather than you.

d. To have not only right timing but right order

 e. To keep out inadmissible evidence

 Covered by rules on objection and motions to strike

f. To expose the weaknesses of your opponent’s case

 The usual method is through cross-examination

g. In cases when the Court refuses your evidence to be admitted although

admissible, to find a way of preserving your record so that if the judgement is
ultimately rendered against you then it can be reviewed on appeal and the
appellate court can take into account the evidence that the trial court
improperly excluded

 Covered by rules on offer of evidence

H: The role of a lawyer is no easy task, I see. Well good luck, with your classes. Let’s proceed
with the game, shall we? Are you ready to play?

C: Yes, I am born ready.

H: Okay. Let me remind you that you have 7 life lines, which you may choose to use at any time.
Let’s begin. Here’s the first question. For One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00): The question is:

Q1: The first step of a lawyer in doing a direct examination is ___________

a. To state the purpose of the offer

b. To manifest that he is resting his case

c. To ask the judge if the witness is credible

d. To ask the judge if the witness is familiar to him

C: (thinks for a few seconds) My answer would be letter A.

H: Is that your final answer?

C: Yes. That is my final answer. (explain why letter A) In the presentation of evidence, a lawyer
starts with the direct examination and the first step of the direct examination is to state the
purpose for which the evidence is presented, for which the witness is going to testify. After the
presentation of evidence, the counsel would manifest to the court that he is resting his case, and
thereafter the case is deemed submitted for decision, unless the parties would desire to submit
written memoranda or briefs.
H: Letter A: to state the purpose of the offer iiiiiis correct! Okay, Ganda, you’ve won Php
1,000.00. Are you ready to proceed with the next question?

C: I’m ready.

H: Okay. Well, the next question is for Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) The question is:

Q2: The matter of preparing for direct examination begins with ______________

a. Knowing who the judge is

b. Knowing who the opposing counsel is

c. Interviewing the client

d. Interviewing the witness

C: *long pause while thinking*

H: Do you need to use your lifelines?

C: Hmm, I think I would like to use a lifeline.

H: What lifeline do you want to use?

C: I’d like to use 50-50 please.

H: Option A and B are eliminated. What will be your answer?

C: I choose letter C.

H: Okay, then. Let’s see if your answer is correct. Liwliwa, please reveal the answer.

Lifeline/Liwliwa (Frances): (explains) The correct answer is letter C: interviewing the client.

A case is decided on the basis of the evidence duly presented and admitted by the court. A case
is won or lost depending on how well or badly you conduct the direct examination or during the
pre-trial stage and even the early stage of formulation of pleadings.

In the presentation of evidence, it starts with the direct examination. The matter of preparing
for direct examination begins with the initial interview with the client and any witnesses that he
has brought with him. Once a client has brought witnesses, the counsel would interview these
witnesses and if he would have any doubts to their statements, try to approach adverse
witnesses as early as possible or witnesses that will tell you that they don’t know anything. The
lawyer should get their statements preferably in writing, but if not, they can always use a tape
recorder in the course of the interview. During the direct examination, the lawyer should make
their questions brief and simple. Follow the same order that you have prepared and when it
comes to identifying documents do it in the most natural way. Do not make a big production out
of your exhibits unless they are really vital exhibits.

Also, during the presentation/offer of evidence, the lawyer should be able to lay the predicate.
Laying the predicate means that there must be an evidentiary reason to allow the thing you are
trying to get admitted be admitted into evidence. It is done by doing an effective method of
putting questions across the witness through an ordinary conversation, telephone conversation,
telegrams, photographs or lay witnesses or by questioning expert witnesses such as a
handwriting expert or medical specialist.

H: Okay, Ganda. You won Two Thousand Pesos already. I have here a check in the amount of
Two Thousand Pesos (2,000.00). Do you want to accept this check now or do you want to
proceed to the next question?

C: I’d like to continue please.

H: Very well. The next question is:

Q3: In plea bargaining, the consent of both public prosecutor and offended party is
required

a. True
b. False
c. Sometimes True
d. Only when the private prosecutor is absent

C: *Exaggerated sigh* Now this is a tough one. I’m thinking between A and C, but I’m not sure.
Hmmm, may I please use my life line?

H: Sure, what would you like to use?

C: I’d like to use call-a-friend please. I’d like to call Malaya please. She is a close friend of mine
and is already a fourth year law student now. She probably knows the answer to this question.

H: Okay, our friends at PLDT, Bayantel, Globe, Smart and Sun are going to help us phone Malaya
and see if she could help.

C: Okay.

H: (phone rings) Is this Malaya?

Malaya: Yes, it is.

H: This is Lakas from Who wants to be a millionaire. We have Ganda here who wants to talk to
you…

C: Malaya! Please help me answer this question: In plea bargaining, the consent of both public
prosecutor and offended party is required

a. True
b. False
c. Sometimes True
d. Only when the private prosecutor is absent

Malaya (Desz): My answer is C. Sometimes True. The consent of both the public prosecutor and
the offended part is required. The usual practice is for the parties represented by the public
prosecutor and the defense counsel to approach the bench which is preceded by a manifestation
from either party. This move is premised on the assumption that negotiations took place
between the accused and the offended party.

Consent of the fiscal is not required when the accused had decided to plead guilty to the crime
as charged in the Information or complaint.

H: Will you adopt Malaya’s answer?

C: Yes. I’m confident that she gave me the correct answer. So my final answer is C. Sometimes
true.

H: Letter C iiiiissss correct! Congratulations. You made a very wise decision in calling your
friend. Now, I’m offering again a check for the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). Do
you want to receive this now or do you want to proceed?

C: Let’s move on to the next question please.

H: The next question is:

Q4: In case the accused had entered Improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense, he
may be allowed by the court to withdraw his guilty plea and substitute the same with
pleas of not guilty at _______________
a. Any time before execution of judgment
b. Any time before an appeal is perfected
c. Any time before prosecution rested its case
d. Any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final.
C: *exaggerated panic mode* Oh my God, Oh my God. I haven’t learned about this yet. I’m not
sure what to answer. I’m sorry, can I use another lifeline?

H: Don’t panic. You have plenty of lifelines to use. What would you like to use this time?

C: I’d like to use Ask the Audience please.

H: Okay, audience, please raise your cards to let Ganda know what you think is the correct
answer.

*everyone raises letter D*

H: Let’s ask why they answered this way. *H approaches someone from audience* What’s your
name?

Matadora (Lingelle): Hello, I’m Matadora, I’m a fourth year law student. I’m with my friends
today. We call ourselves, Team Bagani. (Friends cheer with Matadora)

H: I see you raised letter D. Why?

Matadora: If I recall correctly, the court is mandated to conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and comprehension of the consequences of his plea should the accused plead
guilty to a capital offense. If the accused makes an improvident plea, or a plea involuntarily
made and without consent, under Section 5 of the Rules of Court, the accused who entered an
improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense, may be allowed by the court to withdraw his
guilty plea and substitute the same with pleas of not guilty at any time before the judgment of
conviction becomes final.

H: Okay it seems the audience’s answer is unanimous. Their answer is letter D. Would you like
to lock this in as your answer?

C: I think they know best. Let’s use their answer.

H: You locked in Letter D: Any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final. This
answer isssssss correct! Good job, Ganda. You’ve won Ten Thousand Pesos. Do you want to
proceed to the next question or do you want to go home with this check in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00)

C: No. I’m going to have to refuse your offer. Let’s move on to the next round please.

H: Moving on then. We’re on the fifth question already, Ganda. The question is:

Q5: Before the accused is allowed to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense that that
which is charged in the Information, this must be preceded by __________________
 a. An apology to the opposing party
b. A formal motion from the accused’s counsel withdrawing his former plea
c. A new arraignment
d. Re-raffled to a new court

C: *fans herself* The questions today are tough. My knowledge in the law is still lacking and I
cannot answer this without the help of a lifeline. I’d like to use another lifeline please. Can I use
50-50 again please.

H: Okay. This is your last 50-50 lifeline. We’ll eliminate letter A and D.

C: Thank you, Lakas. Hmm, I think the correct answer is letter B. I don’t think a new arraignment
is required to enter a plea of guilty. So, letter B is my final answer.

H: Let’s see if your answer is correct, shall we? Liwliwa, please reveal the answer.

Lifeline/Liwliwa (Frances): (explains) The correct answer is letter B.

Before the accused is allowed to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense than that which is
charged in the Information, it must be preceded by a formal motion from the accused’s counsel
withdrawing his former plea, which must be reflected in the order of the court. After this formal
motion, the accused shall be re-arraigned during which the accused shall enter his plea of guilty
to a lesser offense.

H: Wow, you’re guess is correct. You just won Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Do you want
to risk in proceeding with the next question or do you want to go home with this check
amounting to P50,000.00?

C: I think I can win this. I still have a lot of lifelines left. Let’s go on, Lakas.

H: Okay then. We’re on our sixth question. This question is for One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00):

Q6: To interpose a plea of incomplete self-defense is predicated on the assumption that

the accused can prove at least two elements of complete self defense which are the
following EXCEPT
a. That unlawful aggression did not come from the accused
b. That he is not guilty of sufficient provocation
c. That he knows who really did it
d. That there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent
the aggression
C: *paces back and forth*.*snaps fingers trying to recall something kunwari* I know this. I
learned this in my criminal law class. But I cannot recall whether the answer in B and C are part
of the elements of self defense. I don’t want to risk guessing the answer, I think I’d like to call a
friend again. I’d like to call Mayari please.

H: Okay, our friends at PLDT, Bayantel, Globe, Smart and Sun are going to help us phone Mayari
and see if she could help.

C: Okay.

H: (phone rings) Is this Mayari?

Mayari (Rochelle): Yes, it is.

H: This is Lakas from Who wants to be a millionaire. We have Ganda here who wants to talk to
you…

C: *panicking* MAYARI! Help! Answer this question: To interpose a plea of incomplete self-
defense is predicated on the assumption that the accused can prove at least two elements of
complete self defense which are the following EXCEPT

a. That unlawful aggression did not come from the accused

b. That he is not guilty of sufficient provocation
c. That he knows who really did it
d. That there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent
the aggression

Mayari: I think the answer is letter C: That he knows who really did it. I think this is not an
element of complete self defense. The elements of complete self defense are: (1) that unlawful
aggression did not come from the accused; (2) that he is not guilty of sufficient provocation; and
(3) that there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent the
aggression. If I recall correctly, I think these elements are based on the Justifying Circumstances
under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

H: Okay, time’s up. Ganda, what’s your final answer. Do you think your friend gave you the
correct answer.

C: Well, Mayari’s very smart. I don’t think she’d give me a wrong answer at this important time.
So, I’ll lock in letter C as my final answer.

H: I agree, your friend is very smart because you just won One Hundred Thousand Pesos!! I
have here a check for One Hundred Thousand Pesos. Do you want to receive this now or do you
want to continue?
C: I am not a quitter. I’ll take my chances. Let’s proceed please.

H: Okay then, the next question is for Five Hundred Thousand Pesos. The question is:

Q7: In _____________, the prosecution is required the initial presentation of evidence

in criminal proceeding

a. Normal procedure in plea of incomplete self-defense

b. Reversed procedure in plea of incomplete self-defense
c. Both of the above
d. None of the above

C: *removes handkerchief from pocket and wipes sweat kunwari* I can feel the pressure now.
(bite fingernails, pakita mo na di mo alam sagot) ummmmm, letter c, no, wait letter B. No…
wait, I’m sorry. I’m not yet sure.

H: Okay, I’ll give you more time to think.

C: I really don’t know the answer to this one. (places hands in the back of their head to show
frustration)

H: You still have one lifeline left. Do you want to use this now or save this just in case?

C: I think it’s wise to use this now. Okay, Lakas, I’ll use my last lifeline. I’ll use the Ask-the-expert
lifeline, please.

H: Okay, Attorney Dilag, I guess you heard the question asked a while ago, what would be your
answer to this question?

Atty. Dilag (Rochelle): (explains) My answer would be letter A: Normal procedure in plea of
incomplete self-defense. This is provided in Sec. 11 of Rule 119 on Trial under the Rules of Court.

The normal procedure is presentation of evidence following accused’s entry of not guilty during
arraignment, whereby the prosecution is required the initial presentation of evidence in criminal
proceeding. On the other hand, the reversed procedure in a plea of incomplete self defense, the
accused is required to present evidence first to prove at least two elements of complete self-
defense, and the existence of mitigating circumstances followed by the presentation of rebuttal
evidence, which may be controverted by sur- rebuttal evidence by the defense, and further
evidence by the prosecution at the discretion of the court.

If the accused makes a conditional plea of guilty or makes statements that qualifies his guilty
plea by giving reasons for committing the act complained of, or if he refuses to plead, a plea of
not guilty shall be entered in the record. Thereafter, the court shall order the accused to present
his evidence to prove the circumstances that justify or exempt him from total punishment for his
actions.

H: Okay, you’ve heard the explanation of our expert. Will you adopt her answer?

C: I’ll adopt her answer. There is no way that she would not know the answer to this question.
I’ll lock in my answer to letter A please.

H: Wise choice, Ganda. You just won Half a million pesos. Now, let me remind you that you no
longer have any life lines available. Do you still want to proceed with the final question?

C: You know what Lakas, I came here for the experience. It doesn’t matter if I win or not. Even if
I do not have any lifelines left I’d still like to proceed with the last round. Fight, fight, fight. Hail
to the chiefs!

H: Bold move. Okay then, I’ll give the final question. For a million pesos, the question is:

Q8: The crime of murder was committed by the accused. During arraignment, he
pleaded guilty. Does he need the consent of the Prosecutor in entering his plea?
a. Yes. Because the accused needs the Prosecutor’s legal support and comfort.
b. No. The consent of the public prosecutor is not required after the accused has
already pleaded guilty to the crime. However, the Court is mandated to conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea entered by the accused.
c. Yes. Consent of Prosecutor is necessary to convict the perpetrator of the crime.
d. Yes. It is the Prosecutor who will prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

H: I’ll give you time to process the question. If I could just give a big hint, recall the previous
questions already asked. Actually, I think the answer to this question was already mentioned
before.

C: *long pause* I think I’ll answer letter B. My gut instinct tells me it’s letter B and I think that’s
the option which seems to be the correct answer. *nervous giggle*

H: Are you sure? I’m giving you a chance to change your answer.

C: By experience, I always make mistakes when I change my first answer. So, this time, I’ll stick
with this answer. So, letter B is my final answer.

H: Okay then, let’s confirm with our expert if this is the correct answer.
Explanation(Dezs): Okay, Lakas, let me briefly explain first plea bargaining before I give the
answer to the question.

Plea bargaining negotiations may be conducted before the accused enters his plea. The success
or failure in plea bargaining depends on the lawyer’s ability to put his idea across the bargaining
table, the use of his hunches, his inborn talent , his skill, patience, and above all, his power of
persuasion and determination in getting what he wants. The Plea bargaining processstarts with
tan overture of negotiation and hard bargaining in a person to person basis made by the parties
thru their counsels highlighted by making proposals and counter-proposals. The opportune time
considered most ideal to start the plea bargaining negotiation, is during the wide gap between
the receipt of the notice of arraignment from the court and the date of arraignment, so as to
prevent surprises and allow more time for the parties to study each other’s reaction, especially
the public prosecutor and the offended party whose consent is required in a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense.

However, where the accused had decided to plead guilty to the crime charged in the
Information or complaint, the prior consent of the public prosecutor and the offended party is
not required. However, as provided by Section 3 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the court is
mandated to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and comprehension of the
consequences of his plea should the accused pleaded guilty to a capital offense and should
require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and to
determine the accused’s degree of culpability.

H: Okay then. It is with a sad heart (kunwari sad) that I announce that you just won a million
pesos. ( lalakas ang boses excited simula doon sa “you just…”) PARTY POPPER

H: It’s a good thing you did not change your answer because now you are the first campus
millionaire. Congratulations, Ganda.