Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

JOSE RAFAEL BARTOLOME February 27, 2019

2016-0151666 Practice Court

COURT OBSERVATION

On February 26, 2019, I conducted my court observation at Branch 31 of the Metropolitan


Trial Court (MTC) in Quezon City. The court is under the leadership of a newly-appointed judge, Ayn
Marie Grace Barit-Carig (Judge Yaz). The public prosecutor in the sala is ACP Marvelous Madamba
(ACP Madamba) and the representative of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is Atty. Gary Louis
Martinez (Atty. Martinez). On the date, she conducted her first even hearing as a judge. I decided to
observe the morning proceedings which consists of the criminal cases for the said day.

For the said morning, Judge Yaz will be hearing 47 cases which are in different stages of the
criminal procedure process. The court also is employing a new innovative system in taking the
stenographic notes as the court has recently adapted the automated taking of stenographic notes
which has also been recently used by other MTCs in Quezon City.

When I entered the sala of Branch 31, I noticed the number of people who are inside the court
which is quite suffocating as the Aircon of the said sala could no longer keep up with the number of
people, but such is expected given that there are 47 cases to be heard. When I entered at 8:15 AM, I
could notice how flustered the staff of Judge Yaz were in the day of the observation, but such is
justifiable given that it would be the first time of Branch 31 to conduct a hearing under the leadership
of Judge Yaz.

The court proceedings began at 8:33 AM. Everything began with the Ecumenical Prayer for
Courts however; the said prayer was led by Judge Yaz. I have observed in other court proceedings I
have attended that the prayer is usually led either by the court interpreter or the branch clerk of
court. After everyone was directed to sit down, Judge Yaz, asked the court interpreter to call the
attendance of all parties that will be appearing in the said cases.

After calling the attendance of the parties, Judge Yaz began calling the cases. What she did in
her first hearing was to prioritize those cases where the parties have furnished the services of a
counsel before hearing the cases without private counsels. For this written report, I chose to relay
five cases which piqued my interest and have noted something of importance which I have also
learned from Dean Fernandez in the Practice Court subject. But before I discuss the cases, I would
like to make some general things I have observed from Judge Yaz.

First, I have observed that Judge Yaz would frequently ask the parties in a case to go for an
amicable settlement. This might be the trend in the MeTC given the fact that the money involved in
MeTC cases are of lesser value than cases in the RTC and the imprisonment in MeTC cases are usually
for a shorter amount of time especially since the cases heard in Judge Yaz’s first hearing are in the
nature where the penalties are not that big.

Second, Judge Yaz does not seem to be that strict yet as oftentimes in the proceeding, the
court room would be filled with noise, but she does not seem to mind it despite there being a
pronouncement that everyone must remain silent and observe proper decorum.

Lastly, everyone in Branch 31 was quite flustered in their first day of hearing with Judge Yaz.
Apart from a new judge, the staff of Branch 31 seem to be adjusting to their new systems like the
continuous trial system and the automated taking down of stenographic notes and judge herself are
still getting the hang out in making orders and conducting the hearing itself.

Having said the following, I shall now discuss five cases that interested me in the hearing.
First, in case no. 38, People vs. PO1 Flores, the accused is charged with Grave Threats and the case
has been set for initial trial for the third time. The witness for the prosecution failed to appear once
more despite warning. This prompted Judge Yaz to ask Atty. Martinez what he would like to do. Atty.
Martinez moved to have the case provisionally dismissed given the circumstance and that the
testimony of the said witness is being waived.

While this is not the only case for the day where Judge Yaz ordered the case to be
provisionally dismissed, this case for me highlighted the importance of the appearance of parties to
a case. It is very important to abide to the orders and summons being done by the court to a party
because this could spell the end of one’s claim or advocacy if he or she does not take time to appear
in court.

Second, in case No. 19, People vs. Gaspar and Gaspar, the accused is charged for BP 22. In the
said case, the private complainant and his counsel filed a motion for extension belatedly however,
with the permission of the prosecutor, the private complainant was given an opportunity to comment
the pleading sent by the prosecution in the interest of Justice. Judge Yaz commented that she wouldn’t
want to dismiss the case over technicalities at whim.

The order rendered by Judge Yaz here just showed me the importance of the discretion of a
judge when Justice in one case would truly be served. Judge Yaz in this situation felt like that she
needed to give the private complainant a chance especially if there is present evidence that could
point out the guilt of the accused.

Third, in case no. 22, People vs. Linsangan, the accused is charged with 9 counts of violation
of BP22. The case was set for presentation of evidence however, the private complainant failed to
appear due to sickness. What makes matters worse is the fact that the private counsel for the
complainant did not read the records of the case. Judge Yaz had no choice but to reset the case for a
last time with warning to the private complainant.

I mean no offense to the counsel of the private complainant but coming to court and stating
that he has not read the records of the case is like any time when a law student Is called for recitation
but has not studied. Such blunder must only remain in law school unless there is compelling reason
for a lawyer not to have read and prepared for cases, but such should never be a norm because lives
are always at stake when a case is in court.

Fourth, in case No. 34, People vs. Dungca, accused is charged Falsification of Public
Documents concerning PHIC claims in the Eye Center of the Philippines. The accused was set to testify
in her own behalf and after being sworn in by the clerk of court, her private counsel, Atty. Mary Grace
Delos Santos (Atty. Mary Grace) submitted a judicial affidavit containing the accused’s testimony.
Atty. Mary Grace conducted the direct testimony where she followed the proper procedure with
respect to judicial affidavits. During the direct, the counsel for the private complainant, Atty. Michael
Troy Polintan (Atty. Polintan) raised an objection where he claims that Atty. Mary Grace is furnishing
a new piece of evidence however such was overruled by Judge Yaz as it was a matter already present
in the judicial affidavit. Atty. Michael then conducted a cross examination however, Atty. Mary Grace
objected to him several times which was sustained by Judge Yaz as Atty. Michael kept asking
questions that could not be answered by the acused for lack of personal knowledge. Atty. Michael
was asked several times to reform his question but due to the several objections, he was not able to
ask a question that would be material to the case of his client. In her re-direct, Atty. Mary Grace was
able to have Judge Yaz issue a subpoena duces tecum for a document in the hands of private
complainant which would be material to the case of her client.

This case was my favorite because I witnessed the importance of being prepared for your
case and having the acumen to conduct a good direct and cross examination. A lawyer must be
prepared in his direct and cross examination because these portions of the trial process can truly
help sway the judge to rule in favor of one side. Being unable to cross examination properly by asking
an objectionable question or not being able to formulate your thoughts well can mean the end of your
client’s advocacy as the cross examination is a powerful tool to determine the qualification of a client.
A counsel’s good line of thinking and questioning could help convince a judge to rule in favor of the
party they represent.

Last, in case no. 13, People vs. Barimbao, accused was charged for violation of City Ordinance
5120. The case was set for pre-trial conference however the accused chose to make a plea of guilt.
When notified of this, Judge Yaz made sure if he understood the consequences of his guilt and the
accused acknowledged such however, since he was detained for longer than penalty of violation of
such ordinance, his case was dismissed given that the imprisonment for such violation is only for a
month.

This case piqued my interest because I witnessed things that I learned in Criminal Procedure
especially a change of plea. This case also taught me the importance of the periods of imprisonment
and the effect if a detainee has served his sentence.

Judge Yaz had two recesses for the whole session. The second session was for a recess as the
previous acting Judge, Hon. Maria Victoria Padilla-Awit (Judge Awit) had to render promulgation of
judgment for cases she previously handled while Judge Yaz was training in the Philippine Judicial
Academy. After which, Judge Yaz resumed the hearing of the remaining cases however she had to
reset the rest of the cases due to lack of material time as the ACP Madamba had an emergency to
attend to.

Overall, I enjoyed my court observation because it is always inspiring to be able to witness


what my future would be when I become a lawyer. I was able to observe what as well makes a good
lawyer from a bad one in where a good lawyer is one who prepares for his case, one who knows how
to make a kickass cross or direct examination and one who researches his adversaries. The
experience is something that all law students must do to be able to become a more effective lawyer
that our country needs.
PICTURES

Potrebbero piacerti anche