Court Observation Notes 10/10/2024
*The illustration shows how Branch 18 is arranged during the court observation of
Group 4. The sala was small and could cater only a small number of people.
Narrative Report
The group was divided into two and were assigned to two different branches in the RTC,
the reason being was that the sala is not spacious enough to cater a number of people.
During the observation, Branch 18 litigated nine cases, all of which are in different
stages—arraignment, pre-trial, and trial. Below are the cases that were tackled on the
10th of October, during the observation, and alongside are the observations of the
group for each case.
CASE PROCEDURE/OBSERVATION
1.) R.A. 9165 Judge moves for STATUS HEARING of Community-Based
“THE Rehabilitation Program(CBRP) of the Accused. The Court
DANGEROUS interpreter asked the PAO lawyer for updates. The PAO
DRUGS ACT OF lawyer said that he is still in the process of complying with
1972 “ the requirements. The judge asked for the presence of the
accused and was eventually presented by the PAO lawyer.
The case was scheduled for another hearing.
2.) R.A. 9165 Judge moves for STATUS HEARING
“THE
DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF
1972 “
Terminates Probation
3.) R.A. 10175 Judge moves for STATUS HEARING
“AN ACT
DEFINING
CYBERCRIME,
PROVIDING
FOR THE
PREVENTION,
INVESTIGATION,
SUPPRESSION
AND THE
IMPOSITION OF
PENALTIES
THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Court interpreter answers for Trial
Calls for Prosecution for the 2nd time to present witness/s
Prosecution failed to produce any witness
Judge emphasized that prosecution failed to produce any
witness for the 2nd time already
4.) R.A. 10175 Judge calls for trial
“AN ACT
DEFINING
CYBERCRIME,
PROVIDING
FOR THE
PREVENTION,
INVESTIGATION,
SUPPRESSION
AND THE
IMPOSITION OF
PENALTIES
THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Public prosecutor moves for Motion to Suspend
Arraignment because Motion for Reconsideration was not
yet resolved under Rule 116 Sec 11(c) ROC, claiming for
provision of 60 days
Judge granted the motion
5.) P.D. No. 1612 The counsel of the defendant asserted they did not receive
“ANTI-FENCING the notice, hence, the failure of the defendant to appear on
LAW OF 1979” the day of the hearing. The judge presiding underscored
this is their second strike, and failure to secure the notice
of hearing is not a sound excuse since the defendant can
proceed to the court and inquire and claim the notice.
The case was scheduled for another hearing.
6.) Article 353 RPC This case involves a government officer accused of libel.
“LIBEL” Only the private counsel was present during the hearing
and claimed they did not receive the subpoena. The judge
presiding underscored the lawyer should have taken
responsibility, took initiative and advised the defendant that
despite the court’s officer’s failure to deliver the subpoena,
he should have proceeded to the court to inquire and claim
such a document.
The case was scheduled for another hearing.
7.) Article 248 RPC In this case, the complainant failed to appear for the third
MURDER time despite being notified. The judge presiding informed
and asked the defendant that this case be provisionally
dismissed. However, the defendant was oblivious of
provisional dismissal, hence, the judge has given him time
to talk with his counsel and come up with a decision. Later,
the defendant agreed that the case be provisionally
dismissed.
Provisional dismissal means that the case is conditionally
dismissed pending certain conditions or further
investigation. This does not acquit the defendant and the
charges against him could be refiled if new evidence
emerges. The complainant can revive the case in 2 years.
Case is provisionally dismissed.
8. RA 9165 Arraignment
The clerk of court read the information to the accused in
Cebuano language. She then asked the accused whether
he pleads guilty or not guilty. The accused pleaded not
guilty.
9. Frustrated Murder The judge reprimanded the Prosecutor for putting wrong
charges in the information. He had given them days to
amend the said information
GROUP 1
Criminal Procedure - Block C
Rayos, Ralph Allen
Granada, Joan Angela
Sumintan, Trixel
Gamaya, Florentino
Arjan, Anurhaida
Lumagsao, Nova Mariz
Koppin, Al Ryan
Content:
1. Court Observation
2. Public Attorney’s Office Lawyer Interview
3. Department of Justice’s Prosecutor Interview
