Ateneo de Davao University

College of Law

_____________________________

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN

PRACTICE COURT I

&

TRIAL TECHNIQUES

______________________________

Submitted to:

Judge Maria Eloisa Maglana

Submitted by:

Morales, David Gil A.

4 – Manresa

1. MTC CRIMINAL CASE

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities – Branch 4INITIAL TRIALPP (ENRICO LARAN) vs PABLO GALLARDO, JR.

Date: August 27, 2015Case No. 153,164-D-15For: Violation of R.A. 3553Counsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Jose A. Garcia, Jr.Counsel for Defendants: Atty. Celeste de VeraPresiding Judge: Jill Rose S. Jaugan-Lo

What transpired:

During the trial, the judge reminded the opposing counsels that the case was to

be tried under the Summary Rules. The accused was alleged to have violated R.A.

3553 when he was found in possession of one slingshot and five arrows. The evidence

was presented before the court, with all the items contained inside a plastic bag.

The defense counsel dealt with the accused to plead guilty to the charge against

him, after the judge commented that if he pleaded guilty, he will be given the penalty of

arresto menor, or be imprisoned for 30 days. Considering that he was already detained

for 8 days, the defense counsel convinced him that he only has 22 days left to serve his

sentence. The judge also told the counsel to remind the accused of the consequences

of pleading guilty to the charge against him. In the end, the accused pleaded guilty for

violating R.A. 3553, and was meted out the penalty of 22 days’ imprisonment. He was

also required to appear in court once a month throughout the course of his service of

sentence.

2. MTC CRIMINAL CASE

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities – Branch 4CONTINUATION OF TRIALPP (MYLA VIRGINIA ORTEGA) vs HELEN VIDAL & MAE VIDAL

Date: August 27, 2015Case No. 122,833-D-05 & 122,834-D-05For: Less Serious Physical Injuries & Simple SlanderCounsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Jose A. Garcia, Jr.Counsel for Defendants: Atty. Francis Arnold de VeraPresiding Judge: Jill Rose S. Jaugan-Lo

What transpired:

During the trial, the private-complainant, Myla Virginia Ortega, was presented as

a witness. She was asked to narrate the events alleged in her Affidavit-Complaint and

the Information.

The prosecution examined the witness and stated that the case was covered by

the Summary Rules. The prosecution established several facts, such as the name of the

accused, the private-complainant’s personal knowledge on the identity of the accused.

She was also questioned whether she remembered the face of the accused by being

shown a photo of the accused attached to a document. She was shown a two-page

document, where she identified such document as her Affidavit-Complaint. Her Affidavit-

Complaint was marked accordingly.

Afterwards, the defense counsel proceeded to cross-examine the defense

counsel. The defense was reminded to use the Summary Rules. The defense counsel

tried to establish that the private-complainant entered the premises without a warrant of

arrest where her husband, the accused, with his paramour, were sleeping in the nude.

The witness stated that her husband’s paramour was the one who first attacked her with

a blow to her jaw and by pulling her hair, at the same time screaming at her. She said

that she did not do anything but merely confront the paramour.

1. MTC CIVIL CASE

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES – BRANCH 4EX-PARTE RECEPTION OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCEEMCOR INC., ETC. vs JOSE MANUEL A FABIAN & MR. ALBERTO R. CAJAYON

Date: August 5, 2015Case No. 22,519-D-12For: Sum of MoneyCounsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Vidal O. Vera Cruz, Jr.Counsel for Defendants: Atty. Dorothy M.S. CajayonPresiding Judge: Jill Rose S. Jaugan-Lo

What transpired:

During the trial, the judge cited that considering that this was already an ex-parte

reception of the plaintiff’s evidence, the allegations made in the pleadings that are

related to the case have already been deemed admitted.

Next, the judge requested the plaintiff’s attorney if the documents were sufficient

to prove the claim as stated in the complaint. The counsel affirmed.

The judge then gave an order to provide the plaintiff’s counsel with 30 days from

the date of the receipt of the ex-parte evidence or receipt of the order to submit position

papers and supporting documents, original and certified true copies, to support the

claim of his client.

2. MTC CIVIL CASE

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES – BRANCH 4CONTINUATION OF TRIALYL FINANCE CORP. represented by DENNIS YMSON vs RAMONCITO LEYSON

Date: August 5, 2015Case No. 20,707-B-G-D-09For: Enforcement of Lessor’s Lien, etc.Counsel for Plaintiffs: Marie Dinah S. Tolentino-FuentesCounsel for Defendants: Atty. Rodolfo Ta-asan, Jr.Presiding Judge: Jill Rose S. Jaugan-Lo

What transpired in the case:

During the trial, the judge first clarified whether the case was set for re-direct

examination the defendant’s witness. The whereabouts of the witness were questioned.

The defendant’s counsel, manifested that the witness is currently out of the country due

to the need to attend to the medical needs of his father.

The defense counsel further requested that the re-direct examination be excused

on such reason of absence by the defendant’s witness. The judge allowed the re-direct

examination to be reset.

There was also a witness from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) that was

supposed to be presented. The counsels of the opposing parties and the judge

discussed among themselves and eventually had an agreement

The judge ordered that the witness from the LTO should have his judicial affidavit

prepared and ordered the same to be submitted to court.

1. RTC CRIMINAL CASE

Regional Trial Court – Branch 17INITIAL RECEPTION OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCEPP vs. CARLOS CANOY et al., (bonded)

Date: August 11, 201570,464 to 465-2011 For: LibelCounsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Carlos Castanos, Jr. / Atty. John Nathaniel MarasiganCounsel for Defendants: Atty. JV CubeloPresiding Judge: Evalyn A. Morales

What transpired:

During the trial, the witness, Mario, was sworn in. There was an offer to present

the testimony of said witness to identify the accused. There was also a submission of

the judicial affidavit as direct testimony and identification of documents in the affidavit.

The defense subsequently manifested that both accused are not present in court.

One is in Cagayan de Oro City, while the second is in Iligan City. The judge said that

such facts were already stipulated during pretrial.

There were objections interposed by the proseuction regarding the judicial

affidavit. Questions No. 1 to 5 went on without any incident. Question No. 6 was

submitted and then there was a motion by the private complainant to have the judicial

affidavit identified. The prosecution proceeded and mentioned that he remembered that

there were 16 pages in all. He had the judicial affidavit reviewed to confirm the truth of

the statements therein and the veracity of the contents. The defense confirmed that the

contents were truthful and well understood. Page 14 was particularly shown to

determine whose signature appeared thereon and the witness answered that it was his.

There were documents reviewed. Question No. 14 referred to one exhibit on a Sun Star

newspaper to confirm that it was the same one.

Next, there was a motion to have defense interpose their objections. On

Question No. 6 particularly, the defense objected that it was inadmissible and that there

was no basis or ground to the answer thereto. Noted from Question Nos. 1 to 5 of the

judicial affidavit, there was no answer or statement made that the witness was

employed as a station manager of RMN Davao. The lawyer of the private complainant,

Atty. Marasigan, asked about the circumstances on how the witness came to know the

accused. However, the defense stated that it was not mentioned that the witness was

employed as station manager of RMN Davao. Question Nos. 7,8 and 9 were all based

on Question No. 6, so all these were objected to and the judge ordered for these to be

stricken off the judicial affidavit.

Atty. Marasigan stated that Question No. 13 had no basis and was leading. The

event asked about allegedly had no basis because there were already previous

statements and questions indicating that there were incidents that happened on

September 22, 2010, which would form the basis for Question No. 14 to 40 including all

the answers thereto. Everything is being objected to. Question No. 41 was also objected

to for having no basis and for being leading. It mentioned of a period from September

24 to October 4, 2010, but in the previous testimony on Question No. 1 to 40, there was

no testimony given that anything happened on such dates.

The judge subsequently ordered to have the judicial affidavit amended and had

the initial reception of evidence reset.

2. RTC CRIMINAL CASE

Regional Trial Court – Branch 17CONTINUATION OF RECEPTION OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCEPP vs. DIOSDADO ERANDIO, JR.

Date: August 11, 2015Case No. 77,418 to 426-2014 (9 counts)For: Qualified TheftCounsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Carlos Castanos, Jr. / Atty. Dennis DagohoyCounsel for Defendants: Atty. Rudy AlonsoPresiding Judge: Evalyn A. Morales

What transpired:

During the trial, the witness, Erlinda, was sworn in. She was asked for her

complete name, age, civil status, occupation and address. The prosecution stated the

purpose of the witness and had her identify the accused and related documents, as well

as testify on other matters relevant to the case.

The questions were as follows:

a. Are you one of the complainants?

b. Please explain how you are related to one of the complainants?

c. What is the name of the husband, and the name of the father of the husband?

d. Where is he now? When did he die? When was the husband married?

e. After marriage, where did you stay? Where is the location? How long did you

stay there?

f. When he was alive, what was his profession?

g. Who owns the property? How did the husband work on the farm? What was the

size of the property given to him?

h. Who owns the specific area?

i. What proof is present to show that he owned the property?

The prosecution manifested that the witness has a document, and prayed that a

photocopy of the original be made for substitution purposes. The judge asked if the

photocopy is a faithful copy of the original. The defense answered that they did not see

it marked and that there was no signing of the date from the clerk of court. The defense

proceeded to check if it was a faithful representation and had it marked accordingly.

More questions followed:

j. What were the produce of the land tilled?

k. Did it include the property of Federico Maasin? The question was objected to for

being leading.

l. When Marcelo died, who tilled the land?

The accused allegedly stole the fruits on the land. Reportedly, he had no right to

harvest and told the witness that it was only the excess of the Piget property. Piget was

said to be the owner of the adjacent land, but did not have permission to harvest the

produce on the contended property. The issue was reported to the barangay.

Regarding the certification from the barangay, it was presented to the witness.

Reportedly affter certification, the witness approached a lawyer who made a demand

letter. There was a provisionally marked receipt between the accused and the company

to whom the produce was sold.

1. RTC CIVIL CASE

Regional Trial Court – Branch 17INITIAL RECEPTION OF DEFENSES’ EVIDENCE with regard to WPIBIENVENIDA BATISTIS, et al., vs ROBERT DELGADO, et al.,

Date: August 11, 2015Case No. 36,048-2014For: Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title, etc.,Counsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Amado CantosCounsel for Defendants: Atty. Danilo BalucanagPresiding Judge: Evalyn A. Morales

What transpired:

During the trial, the defense lawyer, Atty. Balucanag, presented the defendan’ts

witness, Jose Yap, as well as his judicial affidavit. The exhibits were marked, such as

the Certification from Lupon (marked as Exhibit 3), Certified True Copy of the Title, Tax

Declaration and other documents. These were marked accordingly. The exhibits were

previously marked provisionally. Common exhibits that were provisionally marked were

also compared to determine if both parties had the same exhibits. Both parties checked

and confirmed to have the same exhibits, then the documents were permanently

marked.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Atty. Cantos, did a cross-examination of the witness.

The witness was asked about his work status to determine if he was indeed

capable of paying for the subject property. The witness answered that he worked in a

mining company for one year. After that, he was already supported by his two

daughters, who are both professionals.

The witness was asked regarding a loan he extended to a certain Roberto

Delgado, as well as subsequent loans that he extended to Delgado. He was asked how

he was able to afford extending such loans to Delgado.

The witness was asked whether he bought the property even without seeing the

land. The witness answered that he only relied on the title and also went to the City

Assessor. The lawyer appeared to be establishing that the property was given as

collateral for said loans. The witness confirmed that he later discovered that there were

illegal occupants on the property, prompting him to file an action against such illegal

occupants.

2. RTC CIVIL CASE

Regional Trial Court – Branch 17CONTINUATION OF THE RECEPTION OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCEHEIRS OF CATALINA VALDEZ-SABORNIDO vs. HEIRS OF IGAO BAGOBA, et al.,

Date: August 11, 2015Case No. 34,418-2012For: Declaration of Ownership, etc.Counsel for Plaintiffs: Atty. Joel Mahinay / Atty. Lilibeth MadagaCounsel for Defendants: Atty. Danilo Balucanag / Bien Marco BolcanPresiding Judge: Evalyn A. Morales

What transpired:

During the trial, the judicial affidavit of the plaintiff’s witness was presented.

Exhibits were also presented and marked, including the survey plan, the extrajudicial

settlement, the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the Transfer Certificate of Title, among

others. Common exhibits that were provisionally marked were compared to determine if

both parties had the same exhibits. Both parties reviewed and confirmed to have the

same exhibits, then the documents were permanently marked.

The witness was asked about the history of her family’s ownership of the subject

property. She answered that in 1961, there was an extrajudicial partition made over the

subject property. Her mother allegedly bought a portion of the property, Lot 9. The

witness said that they have been in possession of said land and occupied Lot 9 since

that time, or when she was still in Grade 2. She added that they also paid real property

taxes for the subject property.

During cross-examination, the opposing counsel asked whether the plaintiff’s

parents purchased the property from a certain Undag Unal, the original registered

owner of the subject land. The witness answered in the affirmative. She was also asked

if she possessed the Deed of Sale. The witness answered that she did not have the

Deed of Sale from Unal, because she relied on the extrajudicial settlement that they

allegedly entered into, and not the Deed of Sale.

During the re-direct examination, the plaintiff’s counsel confirmed with the

witness that there was a Deed of Sale. However, the witness and her family only relied

on the extrajudicial settlement over said property.