COURT OBSERVATION FOR MTC AND RTC BRANCHES

On October 2, 2018, we visited MTC Branch 2 – Surigao City

under the sala of the Presiding Judge JULIETO BAHAN, presented a letter

and talked to the clerk of court that we were going to observe a series of

court hearings as a requirement in our Summer Apprenticeship subject and

eventually, he agreed.

On a separate day, we also visited RTC Branch 32 under the

sala of the Presiding Judge LEONILA GORGOLON, presented a letter and

talked to the clerk of court that we were going to observe series of hearings

as a matter of requirement in our Summer Apprenticeship subject and

eventually, he agreed.

And thus, hereunder were the following court observations I had

undergone for both MTC Branch 2 and RTC Branch 32 respectively to wit;

FOR MTC BRANCH 2 – SURIGAO CITY

On October 11, 2018, I started my court observation in MTC

Branch 2 at around three o’clock in the afternoon. The Presiding Judge

JULIETO BAHAN started the court hearing with a prayer and then followed

by the announcement of the scheduled hearings by the court interpreter. It

comprises of both civil cases and criminal cases. For the particular civil
case that was tried on the said day, all parties were present and the

prosecution started it by the presentation of the witnesses in the said case.

The counsel for the prosecution presented one of their witnesses and

immediately the court interpreter made an oath to the said witness.

Thereafter, the said witness offered his testimonies and after such delivery,

the counsel for the prosecution propounded some questions to him material

and relevant to the case. Every question asked by the lawyer was

translated by the court interpreter into a vernacular language in order for

the witness to fully understood the questions propounded on him before he

answered. In the same manner, the answer of the witness was also

translated by the court interpreter in English language addressed to the

lawyer before the lawyer would ask another question. After the counsel for

the prosecution finished propounding questions to the witness, the

presiding judge asked the counsel for the defense if he wanted to cross –

examine the said witness and he replied that he wanted to do so. The

presiding judge allowed the counsel for the defense to cross – examine the

witness for the prosecution and the latter started the same. Some

questions were propounded by the defense counsel directed to the said

witness for the prosecution. Again, every question propounded by the

defense counsel directed towards the witness was translated by the court
interpreter before the witness was allowed to answer. It is for the purpose

to ensure that the witness fully understood the questions made by the

counsel. Thereafter, the witness answered the questions and the same

were translated by the court interpreter directed towards the counsel. After

such, the counsel for the defense continued asking questions to the

witness relevant and material to the case. Sometime, the presiding judge

intervened and asked some clarificatory questions either to the witness or

to the counsel to ensure that all information or testimonies delivered by the

witness were relevant and material to the case and such questions

propounded by the counsel were not misleading. Until such time that the

counsel for the defense had finished his cross-examination to the witness,

the presiding judge asked the pleasure of the counsel for the prosecution

for any clarificatory matters and thereafter both the counsel for the defense

and the prosecution agreed to set the date for the next hearing. Thereafter,

the presiding judge ordered the schedule for the next hearing and

adjourned the trial. The court interpreter then, called the parties for the

second hearing as scheduled and when both parties were present, the

presiding judge ordered to begin the trial.

At this time, the case tried was a criminal case entitled “trespass

to dwelling”. The court interpreter called the parties to case and since all
were present, the trial had begun. The counsel for prosecution presented

one of the witnesses to a case. The court interpreter immediately

performed the oath and after such, the counsel for the prosecution started

propounding questions to the said witness. Questions were asked in a

manner that would elicit information if the witness really in his own personal

knowledge had actually seen the crime. Furthermore, questions were

asked by the prosecuting counsel to establish the credibility of the witness’

testimony which were material and relevant to the case in questioned. After

the counsel for the prosecution finished propounding his questions to the

witness, the presiding judge asked the counsel for the defense if he wanted

to cross examine the witness. He answered in affirmative and so the judge

ordered the cross examination. Many questions were propounded during

the said cross examination. The purpose of the defense counsel was to

really see if such witness was telling the truth, nothing but the whole truth

pertaining to his own personal knowledge of the crime. On the other hand,

the answer of the witness was not responsive to the questions. It seemed

that he really didn’t know the happening of the crime. For such, it prompted

the defense counsel to ask more questions in order to destroy the

credibility of the witness’ testimony. The defense counsel was trying to

impress the court that the accused of the crime was not guilty beyond
reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the witness and based on the

evidence on record. When the defense counsel contended to the answers

of the witness from the questions he propounded, he told to the court “that

would be all your honor” and the presiding judge granted the same.

Thereafter, the presiding judge together with the counsel for the

prosecution and the counsel for the defense agreed the schedule for the

next hearing of the case. Since then, the presiding judge adjourned the

trial.

FOR RTC BRANCH 32

On November 15, 2018, I went to RTC Branch 32 to observe a

series of trials conducted thereat. One of the cases that was tried on that

day was a “drug case”. The apprehending officer was on the witness stand

to testify under oath about the legality of the operation and apprehension of

the accused. Some questions were asked to the accused by the Fiscal to

establish the validity, legality, as well as the credibility of the apprehending

officer based on his personal knowledge relevant to the surrounding

circumstances in the course of their operation for the apprehension of the

accused. Satisfied to the answer of the apprehending officer, the fiscal

rested propounding questions to the apprehending officer and said “that will

be all your honor” and forthwith the presiding judge LEONILA GORGOLON
had made some follow up questions to the apprehending to elucidate

further and clarify something on matters that were ambiguous. Thereafter,

the presiding judge asked the defense counsel if he wanted to cross

examine the apprehending officer and so, he did. In the course of the cross

examination, the defense counsel asked many question intended to destroy

the testimony of the apprehending officer pertaining to the case. The

defense counsel noticed some inconsistencies of the apprehending

officer’s answer to the questions that prompted him to expound more by

continuously asking questions in order to get the desired information

favorable to the accused. Because of such inconsistency, the presiding

judge intervened and asked some clarificatory questions on the

apprehending officer to determine whether or not the latter was really telling

the truth or not. The presiding judge reminded the apprehending officer to

tell the whole truth based on his personal knowledge otherwise he will be

facing administrative and criminal charge for being under oath. Thereafter,

the presiding judge asked the pleasure of both the counsel for the

prosecution and the counsel for the defense for the schedule of the next

hearing. After such agreement, the presiding judge adjourned the trial.